Wow- Have i missed something?


(Svetlana G.) #21

Thank you, Christian,

Yep, that was the previous year voting and we introduced the DAM feature because it was the most requested feature among all.
Guys, I can understand your disappointment but this time we were limited in time (by the reasons everybody know) and we did our best to provide you with the basic feature. But this time unlike the previous years when intermediate releases mostly contained bug fixes and new bodies support we are going to provide features as well.

  • The DAM feature will be improved with the new criterias search.
    Please, do not think that we completely forget about the image development features, they are in progress, backlog and plans .

And yes, we carefully read your suggestions, see which ones can be easy implemented and which will take a serious development and we take into account the votes you put on them. Step by step we will implement them.

Thank you
Regards,
Svetlana G.


#22

I’m currently evaluation the new version (30 days trial) but I must admit that I will probably not buy because the changes are virtually non existent. Something “DAMish” was added which I don’t need, they claim to have improved the ClearView feature (no noticeable difference there) and then there is the DCP profile feature which I also don’t need. Is this worth a paid upgrade? Definitely not in my opinion, that’s simply the kind of update that you provide with intermediate versions between two major (paid) releases. At first I thought they forgot to publish the change log. But then I realized that there is no change log because there are simply not enough changes to justify such a document.

@DxO: I love your software and I’d love to support you, especially given the fact that your company has been in financial troubles lately. That’s why I happily spent money on the new version of the Nik Collection, even though there were hardly any improvements over the free version. But with this paid upgrade to PhotoLab it’s different. I won’t spend such an amount of money for what I’d call a non-upgrade. Very disappointed :frowning:


(Pascal) #23

Have you been doing severe tests?
The improvement is real on images that request it.


(Mark) #24

I certainly hope that updates to existing functionality and some new features will be added during interim releases. Since I’ve been on board I have a been a big supporter and defender of PhotoLab which I think is still a superior tool in a number of ways.

I was looking forward to a first step towards a wider range of features that already exist in your competitions offerings, as well as enhancements to existing tools. I appreciate that recent circumstances took its toll on your development team, but what we got was still very disappointing. I’m not giving up on Photolab but your team needs to step up the pace of development to be competitive with the growing number of alternatives to Photolab now available.

Mark


#25

I’ve developed a few photos so far and I cannot see a real difference. But that may be because I tend to only apply tools like ClearView in small doses, I don’t like overprocessing my photos. Still, if one tool is the only development related feature that is updated and you charge a whopping 70 $ for it I expect at least a fundamental change of this particular feature. But I definitely cannot see that in my photos. In my opinion there is absolutely nothing in this Upgrade that justifies a 70 $ price tag for existing customers who have already spent hundreds of $ on your software.


(Mark) #26

Sadly, I have to agree. I had hoped for something more than what we got.

Mark


(Peter) #27

I just watched the promo video on youtube and i don’t want to be negative but just understand correctly:
Clearview plus: it doesn’t show a second controlslider.(i read somewhere in this forum there was a extra control other then microcontrast.) So plus?
DCP: ok i think i am not the target for that feature so no comment.
The new librarytab: it is may be just me but i am seldom searching for certain iso or shuttertime or aperture in my libary, i search for places or people or pets or Stars maybe if i think of to rate the good one’s.
Date? my raw archive-folderstructure is build on year-3months- month- date and place so just go to folder structure for that.
Tagging (people)names would be interesting. (now i use the DAM of my developed jpeg archive to search a person or something, check file name and date and look for this in raw archive and start making a better one. Which is much more work.) On the other hand if the tagging isn’t picked up by my other dam i have to do this twice.
things i miss in v1.2 (or didn’t find/know about) ánd in v2.0 are:

  • compare of a change per tool by toggle. (for checking if a correction is going the right way, in local correction very valuable), by other toolset i can use the on-off switch but a general key would be nice.
  • key combi to preview full image prime nr or if thats to difficult a possible choise of sizes of preview box in floating mode. (open preview gives a box on image which you can resize to a quarter of the image and drag that around and in this box will be prime applied.)
  • Edit history list can be use full as compare tool. click back on the list reveals the steps you did.
  • change preset preview by hoovering over the filters and presets. (now i have select to see if it would be better and select my first one again or do “undo”)
  • improvements of existing tools in behaviour,controlfunctions and visualisation. (can’t remember all feature requests in this matter but there where a lot.)

somehow i don’t feel its a upgrade more like a update to v1.3. I understand what Svetlana is writing. They did had some stormy weather at sea and the kitchen was on just could food duty. But i hope that this doesn’t mean that PLv2.0 has to be v2.1 til v2.9 before they catch up on backlog.
I have DxO PLv1.x for few months and i really like its produced image’s and possibilities as a hole group, nik vp fp and PL,(i stil think FP and NIK have to be rearranged or merge together) I would support there efforts to survive if the “Upgrade” would be 29Euro’s to get an other year updates and implements, but 69 euro’s for renewing my 4 months old “contract” for “just” this cake? geesh hmmm, feel sad and confused.


#28

Peter,
I share your sentiment. I was expecting to see significant improvements in Photo Lab 2 and I almost upgraded as soon as I received the email notification about the new version. At this point, I might still upgrade anticipating that new features will be added with interim releases.Of course, if I wait too long, the cost of the upgrade increases: :astonished:

Joseph


#29

what you left out is that there were also many well-founded votes against introducing a DAM, but the forum software doesn’t support “negative votes”.

The opponents in the mentioned thread seem to be confirmed.


(John Barrett) #30

I agree totally, few users ever found this forum, see the number using
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/1006
for that. Even fewer found the relevant section on ideas and voting. Again even fewer bothered voting and I was one as I didn’t think the things being asked for would actually be implemented based on the way things had gone in the past.
Indeed only DAM has emerged, other much more usfull things have not which is very much what happen in the past with the OP forums.
But I and others did say DAM wasn’t something of high priority, that now the useless voting concept of only counting agree but not having a vote to disagree shows its was indeed a rather pointless exercise, that lead to a new addition to PL that few wanted and has diverted resources away from core improvements.


(Chris Morton) #31

It seems the focus has been to woo users from Adobe who have been disaffected by their subscription policy rather than to provide improvements for us loyal users who have been with DxO for years.

I was reluctant to pay for upgrade from DxO 11 to PL, but thought it worth doing in the hope that PL would in time concentrate on proper integration of local enhancements, ie by having proper management of masking and potential to use all DxO tools. It looks as if that is going to cost over £200 by the time we are at PL4. It looks as if the time has come to dig in at PL 1.2 which is ‘good enough’ for 95% of processing.

I might change my mind if upgrade price was halved (and refund made to those already having (over)paid already)


(Peter) #32

If you look on the site it is allready 89,- for 69,- Or is for those whom not be upgraded from DXO11 to pl the cost now 89,-?


(John Barrett) #33

I used to use Lightroom and before that PSE never used there DAM’s. But I would say if the idea is to get former Lightroom users the DAM is so useless its not going to work as it is. I say that as a user of Photo Supreme which does everything and more for what I need and is not tied to any other program.
A quick look at the PL2 version didd’t look to be able to support networked and plug in storage something I suspect most photographers use now for backups if not actual current working storage.


#34

It’s not even a DAM, it’s only DAMish at best. It’s an indexing and searching feature. But what should I search for if there are no tags? And PhotoLab does not allow to tag your photos.


(Wiesiek Pawłowski) #35

My first reaction to the email announcement was also “to do the upgrade”, but (fortunately) I started by checking what’s new. I absolutely agree with the opinion that focusing on DAM was a serious mistake. You (DXO) should have done a more in-depth analysis of users’ comments/opinions. This would have led you to the conclusion that what most of us expect is improvements to the core functionality.

DAM is a complicated issue and if somebody needs a proper solution there are dedicated, very capable tools already available on the market. Competing with them is a waste of time and resources. Instead, PL should improve on what it already does very well, in many cases better than the competition.

For example, the local adjustment tools, which were an excellent addition can and should be improved further. I have a lot of previous experience with U-point technology from Nikon Capture NX2, and I have to say that the masks that NX2 creates are significantly better and more natural looking. The ones that PL 1.2 creates are mostly “circular”. I would buy the upgrade to 2.* immediately if you managed to achieve the level of masking sophistication of NX2!

So, please DO concentrate on important improvements that will make PL an absolute market leader among RAW converters. I’ll do the upgrade as soon as you decide to go this way :slight_smile:

I still consider PL my tool of choice, and keep my fingers crossed for its further development.

All the best for the DXO Team,
Wiesiek


#36

Thanks to all that offered their views on the current upgrade situation.

Reading this thread and many others across numerous forums it appears public opinion is that this upgrade isn’t worthy of a charge!!!
Another take away is the Lack of communication from DXO…
DXO, know that FEED BACK is a gift, please take comments from customer base and put them to good use!!

Looking forward to info about DXO future goals for their software packages.
I currently use PL 1.2, Viewpoint, Filmpack and DXO NIk collection, so a published roadmap of these will go a long way in keeping me a DXO customer.

Best regards and looking forward to a bright DXO future! It’s in your hands.
Mike


(Colin S Pearson) #37

I agree very very strongly with this comment by wiesiek.

When we look at the complexity and sophistication of ‘real’ Digital Asset Management (DAM) programs - for example IMatch ( https://www.photools.com/ ), which I use - then it seems obvious to me that if PhotoLab’s Developers tried to emulate even a sub-set of those real DAM features, they would be drifting into the deep waters of an entirely different ocean.

I join with the others here who urge PhotoLab’s Developers to please concentrate on the core features of PhotoLab as a RAW file editor.

(I’ve never used Adobe Bridge.)

Colin P.


(Martin Williams) #38

Well, I was perhaps silly enough to upgrade; and hope that Clearview “Plus” [hahaha?] makes it worthwhile.

Like others, not so bothered about sorting images; I want a RAW photo editor.
Been happy with DXO, rather sympathise with troubles; but indeed US$69 for upgrade is steep, especially if there’s barely any difference.

One pretty obvious improvement that DXO could make would be access to the Nik Collection; I have the freebie set, downloaded from google before, but not all working for Mac.

  • now you have this collection at DXO, could bundle it with PhotoLab 2 I think [rather than part way, with the spot fixing; unless I have overlooked something]
    Which may cause apoplexy in DXO’s accounts people etc; but might help a lot with user base, and how people rate DXO.

(terrycym) #39

I LightRoom replacement as far as DAM is concerned would be great but it hasn’t happened.
I use PL as a first step with my RAWs before using PTGui, as such, it’s great.
The other use is the noise reduction
The lens profiles are great too.
This is what I use and this is what I mainly need.
As such, DxO ought really to concentrate here


(Lee Grant) #40

Normally I would upgrade. However, photo lab 2 not worth it in my opinion.
I will wait for next year to see if it is worthwhile then.