# DXO announces Photolab 4, save 30% on new purchases and upgrades



## Canon Rumors Guy (Oct 21, 2020)

> *DxO PhotoLab 4: revolutionary in every respect*
> Today, DxO, one of the most innovative companies in the field of photography and image editing, is unveiling DxO PhotoLab 4, a major update of its multiple award-winning photo-editing software. This latest version features DxO DeepPRIME, a revolutionary demosaicing and denoising technology based on artificial intelligence and trained with deep learning. DxO PhotoLab 4 has also added a new dynamic interface system called DxO Smart Workspace, enriched its photo library with a batch renaming feature, and created an even simpler workflow by adding a new and exclusive editing history tool called DxO Advanced History and the ability to selectively copy and paste specific settings. Lastly, the new DxO Instant Watermarking feature lets users sign their photos by adding a watermark directly to the image.
> *Get DXO PhotoLab 4 // Free One Month Trial of DXO PhotoLab...*


*

[url=https://www.canonrumors.com/dxo-announces-photolab-4-save-30-on-new-purchases-and-upgrades/]Continue reading...*


----------



## HikeBike (Oct 21, 2020)

Upgraded. R6 support at last.


----------



## bbasiaga (Oct 21, 2020)

So is this the kind of thing that can do Raw image import? Or would I be doing that in lightroom/DPP/something else and then using this software afterwards? 

-Brian


----------



## AlanF (Oct 21, 2020)

MOST IMPORTANTLY - IT IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE R5!
Excuse the shouting via capital letters, but this is marvellous for me and lots of us.


----------



## usern4cr (Oct 21, 2020)

I have DXO PhotoLab 3 (I started with Optics Pro and have updated repeatedly already), and I just checked today if it has an update for R5 support, and it DOES NOT!

So, when are are they going to update my PhotoLab 3 version for Canon R5 and RF lens support? ARE THEY?
If not, and they expect for me to pay for yet ANOTHER version update just to get a R5 update which they should be sending me now, I'm going to be *pissed*!

So, to all of you interested in this program, I will tell you 2 things:
1) It is a beautiful program - easy to work with, great for noise reduction and some tweaking of images.
2) It is not really any different money-wise from Adobe, which wants your money every month. DXO will say they don't force you to do that but then they do force you to frequently pay for new versions which have the updates that should be provided in their existing versions, so you end up paying a lot on an ongoing basis anyway.


----------



## usern4cr (Oct 21, 2020)

HikeBike said:


> Upgraded. R6 support at last.


Does it support the R6 raw files as well as compressed raw files?


----------



## Bert63 (Oct 21, 2020)

AlanF said:


> MOST IMPORTANTLY - IT IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE R5!
> Excuse the shouting via capital letters, but this is marvellous for me and lots of us.




Agree, unfortunately if you don’t PAY for the upgrade you have no R5 support.......

Wow.


----------



## gtsviper (Oct 21, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> I have DXO PhotoLab 3 (I started with Optics Pro and have updated repeatedly already), and I just checked today if it has an update for R5 support, and it DOES NOT!
> 
> So, when are are they going to update my PhotoLab 3 version for Canon R5 and RF lens support? ARE THEY?
> If not, and they expect for me to pay for yet ANOTHER version update just to get a R5 update which they should be sending me now, I'm going to be *pissed*!
> ...



Same here. Probably a play on words... Will be supported in October = Buy/Upgrade to new version. They did the same thing to me when I added a Canon 1D mk4. I had to upgrade from standard to Elite. Very few RF lenses supported. NO RF100-500L support at this time.


----------



## bbasiaga (Oct 21, 2020)

gtsviper said:


> Same here. Probably a play on words... Will be supported in October = Buy/Upgrade to new version. They did the same thing to me when I added a Canon 1D mk4. I had to upgrade from standard to Elite. Very few RF lenses supported. NO RF100-500L support at this time.


Yeah, I think Adobe ruined it for us with the subscription thing. At least with the permanent license stuff what ou have will work forever with its current feature set. As far as I understand it, if you stop paying Adobe, you can't even open the program, no matter how many thousands you have spent over the years. 

I'd still mostly rather pay to have something, knowing I may have to pay to upgrade versions in the future if I get new gear. But for some I could see how the subscription model is better. Maybe akin to lease vs/ buy on a car - normally its a great deal for the car company, and occasionally its a good deal for the driver. 

-Brian


----------



## gtsviper (Oct 21, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> *[url=https://www.canonrumors.com/dxo-announces-photolab-4-save-30-on-new-purchases-and-upgrades/]Continue reading...*



Unstable. It crashed while adding files. Hit customize and it totally disappeared (fatal app crash). Canon R5. Does not support DRAW (Dual Pixel Raw) or HIF files. So far, not able to use. No RF 100-500L module. Very limited RF lens modules.


----------



## gtsviper (Oct 21, 2020)

bbasiaga said:


> So is this the kind of thing that can do Raw image import? Or would I be doing that in lightroom/DPP/something else and then using this software afterwards?
> 
> -Brian


Only standard RAW. NOT Dual Pixel RAW or HIF.


----------



## zim (Oct 21, 2020)

gtsviper said:


> Unstable. It crashed while adding files. Hit customize and it totally disappeared (fatal app crash). Canon R5. Does not support DRAW (Dual Pixel Raw) or HIF files. So far, not able to use. No RF 100-500L module. Very limited RF lens modules.


Have you raised s support ticket with them?
I've always found their support responsive.


----------



## zim (Oct 21, 2020)

Bert63 said:


> Agree, unfortunately if you don’t PAY for the upgrade you have no R5 support.......
> 
> Wow.


The upgrade cost looks pretty reasonable to me given the additional functionality, very interested in the new prime stuff.
That's assuming the install isn't a pup like gstviper seems to have found!


----------



## gtsviper (Oct 21, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> Does it support the R6 raw files as well as compressed raw files?


Canon R5 RAW and CRAW (Compressed RAW) support. NO DRAW (Dual Pixel RAW).


----------



## zim (Oct 21, 2020)

gtsviper said:


> Only standard RAW. NOT Dual Pixel RAW or HIF.


Does any 3rd party support dual pixel raw?


----------



## Bert63 (Oct 21, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> I have DXO PhotoLab 3 (I started with Optics Pro and have updated repeatedly already), and I just checked today if it has an update for R5 support, and it DOES NOT!
> 
> So, when are are they going to update my PhotoLab 3 version for Canon R5 and RF lens support? ARE THEY?
> If not, and they expect for me to pay for yet ANOTHER version update just to get a R5 update which they should be sending me now, I'm going to be *pissed*!
> ...




You are exactly right. I’m disappointed in their business model to say the least. Existing, loyal customers should come first IMO. 

DxO upgrade are averaging $70 a year (upgraded last year for $69 despite the ad saying $49) and here we go again. Yes, it’s optional, but not really (Depending on your needs).

I’m sitting on the latest version which still has no R5/R6 support and they have the balls to trot out this ‘upgrade’ that includes R5/R6 support..

I love the program but their priorities are all f’ed in my opinion.

Yes I’ll buy it. No, I won’t like it. I’ll also start looking at other alternatives or go off to the black market again.

DxO stock has dropped for me - no two ways about it.


----------



## gtsviper (Oct 21, 2020)

zim said:


> The upgrade cost looks pretty reasonable to me given the additional functionality, very interested in the new prime stuff.
> That's assuming the install isn't a pup like gstviper seems to have found!


It may be specific to the CANON R5 modules. Anyway, the first crash generated crash information that was sent to DxO via their crash report within the program. The second crash instantly killed the app so no crash reporting was sent.


----------



## usern4cr (Oct 21, 2020)

gtsviper said:


> Canon R5 RAW and CRAW (Compressed RAW) support. NO DRAW (Dual Pixel RAW).


Well, R5 Raw and CRaw are the only Canon input things I would need it to support, other than supporting the new RF lenses. I don't have any interest or use for Dual Pixel Raw.

I don't need their support for inputting HEIC (or whatever it's called) files as I only shoot raw or compressed raw. BUT I would want support for them OUTPUTTING HEIC format files so I don't have to choose between outputting .jpg (poor quality) or .tif (way too bloated memory-wise). Heic would have been ideal as a way to pass files on to other programs, such as PTGuiPro or AffinityPro or to do printing of them. I've asked them over & over to support output to .heic but to no avail - too bad.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 21, 2020)

They have to have a continuing income to keep the program updated. Adobe does it by ransomeware, and you have to pay to keep on just using. DxO upgrades at the end of October each year. If you haven't upgraded your camera to a brand new model, you don't have to buy the upgraded software.


----------



## usern4cr (Oct 21, 2020)

Bert63 said:


> You are exactly right. I’m disappointed in their business model to say the least. Existing, loyal customers should come first IMO.
> 
> DxO upgrade are averaging $70 a year (upgraded last year for $69 despite the ad saying $49) and here we go again. Yes, it’s optional, but not really (Depending on your needs).
> 
> ...


I agree, Bert63! I'll also be forced to pay $70 *yet again* to upgrade to support R5 raw & CRaw. After all, my new R5 and RF lenses cost just a "wee-bit"  more than that! 

I have been happy enough using PTGui (after using DXO) to do huge panoramas. And to view huge panos (sometimes a giga-pixel or more) I use AffinityPhoto (which is GREAT with huge files). Maybe one day AffinityPhoto will get good enough (and I'll get good enough with it) to stop using DXO entirely. But until that day comes, it looks like I'll wait to see when enough people say PhotoLab4 is stable enough to be worth upgrading to and I'll just "bite my tongue" and upgrade again.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 21, 2020)

It's as cheap to buy the upgrade to DxO PL 4 as it is to buy just Topaz Denoise AI, which I have been using on a free month's trial. Currently, I have been using Adobe LR to convert my files, and Topaz sharpen and denoise the Adobe-generated jpeg - which hs been a real pain.


----------



## usern4cr (Oct 21, 2020)

AlanF said:


> They have to have a continuing income to keep the program updated. Adobe does it by ransomeware, and you have to pay to keep on just using. DxO upgrades at the end of October each year. If you haven't upgraded your camera to a brand new model, you don't have to buy the upgraded software.


Yes, that's true. It's still better than what Adobe did (which is why I won't use their software if at all possible). And $70 isn't the end of the world. But I'm of the opinion that if I buy a $70 update and get a year of use, I should also get at least a 2nd year of camera body & lens updates (without all the user bells & whistles they claim in the next $70 upgrade). Then I could skip every other upgrade if I wanted to, or else choose to upgrade every year. 

I just hope they make it stable (well, stable on a Mac at least ) enough to use and support the various RF lenses I use, and I'll see if they made any of the user interface improvements I suggested (which I doubt).


----------



## AlanF (Oct 21, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> I agree, Bert63! I'll also be forced to pay $70 *yet again* to upgrade to support R5 raw & CRaw. After all, my new R5 and RF lenses cost just a "wee-bit"  more than that!
> 
> I have been happy enough using PTGui (after using DXO) to do huge panoramas. And to view huge panos (sometimes a giga-pixel or more) I use AffinityPhoto (which is GREAT with huge files). Maybe one day AffinityPhoto will get good enough (and I'll get good enough with it) to stop using DXO entirely. But until that day comes, it looks like I'll wait to see when enough people say PhotoLab4 is stable enough to be worth upgrading to and I'll just "bite my tongue" and upgrade again.



It was instantly stable on my MacBook Pro with the latest MacOS, just as all of my earlier versions have been over many years. I can't speak for anyone else's computer. For example, Canon's DPP4 and Utilities 3 won't install on this Mac, and I have an older MacBook just for those and and for some other non-compatible software.


----------



## zim (Oct 21, 2020)

gtsviper said:


> It may be specific to the CANON R5 modules. Anyway, the first crash generated crash information that was sent to DxO via their crash report within the program. The second crash instantly killed the app so no crash reporting was sent.


I'd be very interested to hear how you get on. I hope you get things sorted.


----------



## usern4cr (Oct 21, 2020)

I just got this reply from DXO:

"No, unfortunately the R5 was unable to be made compatible with DxO PhotoLab 3, DxO PhotoLab 4 will be required to use that camera with our software, my apologies."

So, now you all know for sure.


----------



## usern4cr (Oct 21, 2020)

AlanF said:


> It was instantly stable on my MacBook Pro with the latest MacOS, just as all of my earlier versions have been over many years. I can't speak for anyone else's computer. For example, Canon's DPP4 and Utilities 3 won't install on this Mac, and I have an older MacBook just for those and and for some other non-compatible software.


Thanks, AlanF! Which Mac OS do you use? I've wanted to stick with OS 14 (Mojave) as I'm worried about trouble if I switch to OS 15 or above (64 bit version issues?).


----------



## zim (Oct 21, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> I agree, Bert63! I'll also be forced to pay $70 *yet again* to upgrade to support R5 raw & CRaw. After all, my new R5 and RF lenses cost just a "wee-bit"  more than that!
> 
> I have been happy enough using PTGui (after using DXO) to do huge panoramas. And to view huge panos (sometimes a giga-pixel or more) I use AffinityPhoto (which is GREAT with huge files). Maybe one day AffinityPhoto will get good enough (and I'll get good enough with it) to stop using DXO entirely. But until that day comes, it looks like I'll wait to see when enough people say PhotoLab4 is stable enough to be worth upgrading to and I'll just "bite my tongue" and upgrade again.


This is a bit off topic but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for affinity photo to have as good a raw development module as DxO

Incidentally i used to use PTGui but have found the pano stitching in affinity to be really good, I've not missed any of the projection or point alignment options. Have you tried it?


----------



## AlanF (Oct 21, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> Thanks, AlanF! Which Mac OS do you use? I've wanted to stick with OS 14 (Mojave) as I'm worried about trouble if I switch to OS 15 or above (64 bit version issues?).


Works on both Catalina on the newer MacBook and Mojave on the older. I upgraded Mojave on the newer Mac as Canon DPP4 wouldn't install on it and found the same with Catalina - it's a Mac hardware problem and Canon's flaky software.


----------



## usern4cr (Oct 21, 2020)

zim said:


> This is a bit off topic but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for affinity photo to have as good a raw development module as DxO
> 
> Incidentally i used to use PTGui but have found the pano stitching in affinity to be really good, I've not missed any of the projection or point alignment options. Have you tried it?


I haven't tried AffinityPhoto for stitching yet (I've gotten used to PTGui). But if you think the stitching is better in AffinityPro then please let me know and I'll give it a try!

It's also good to hear that DXO might be worth staying with for raw development - Thanks, zim!


----------



## Bert63 (Oct 21, 2020)

zim said:


> The upgrade cost looks pretty reasonable to me given the additional functionality, very interested in the new prime stuff.
> That's assuming the install isn't a pup like gstviper seems to have found!



It isn’t the price, it’s the principle. I went round and round with tech support just last week about when the software would be updated to support the R5.

They said it was a priority (eventually) but never mentioned it would be a paid upgrade, or that you’d have to get the entire new version to receive what should be a basic update for all current users.

I hate when a software company holds themself up as an alternative to a subscription service model, then holds updates hostage behind paywall BS.

DxO as a non-subscription option is a lie.


----------



## Bert63 (Oct 21, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> I just got this reply from DXO:
> 
> "No, unfortunately the R5 was unable to be made compatible with DxO PhotoLab 3, DxO PhotoLab 4 will be required to use that camera with our software, my apologies."
> 
> So, now you all know for sure.




So they lied.

I have the email to prove it.


----------



## SeeManRun (Oct 21, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> I have DXO PhotoLab 3 (I started with Optics Pro and have updated repeatedly already), and I just checked today if it has an update for R5 support, and it DOES NOT!
> 
> So, when are are they going to update my PhotoLab 3 version for Canon R5 and RF lens support? ARE THEY?
> If not, and they expect for me to pay for yet ANOTHER version update just to get a R5 update which they should be sending me now, I'm going to be *pissed*!
> ...


Came here to say this. I will be skipping this version; Version 3 had basically no updates. I picked up ACDSee in the hopes that it can manage my library better, since DXO Photolab does nothing but look at files on your hard drive.


----------



## brad-man (Oct 21, 2020)

I won't need to upgrade until I pick up an R5. That will probably be in about a year and a half, so I'll probably jump from PL 3 Elite to 5...


----------



## zim (Oct 21, 2020)

Bert63 said:


> It isn’t the price, it’s the principle. I went round and round with tech support just last week about when the software would be updated to support the R5.
> 
> They said it was a priority (eventually) but never mentioned it would be a paid upgrade, or that you’d have to get the entire new version to receive what should be a basic update for all current users.
> 
> ...


Ah i see if they added R5 support into your version when it was still the current version (which I'd be fairly sure they could have) it would have been free but holding it back to v4 makes it a paid upgrade, sorry a bit slow on the uptake there! I was just thinking from my own pov where the new functions looked worth the upgrade cost.


----------



## Bert63 (Oct 21, 2020)

zim said:


> Ah i see if they added R5 support into your version when it was still the current version (which I'd be fairly sure they could have) it would have been free but holding it back to v4 makes it a paid upgrade, sorry a bit slow on the uptake there! I was just thinking from my own pov where the new functions looked worth the upgrade cost.



Yep.

It would be different if I hadn't exchanged at least a half-a-dozen emails with them as late as last week.

First they told me it was "on the roadmap"

When I asked them what "on the roadmap" meant in terms of a time line they said "it was a precise process" and they wouldn't commit to a date because they wouldn't be rushed.

We went back and forth a couple of more rounds but they wouldn't commit to anything and I received a lukewarm response to my very specific queries.

The bottom line is that they knew when we were exchanging conversation that there would be no update to the current software and that a paid upgrade would be necessary. They could have told me then. Instead they were shady and dodged and weaved..

My opinion of them is nowhere near what it once was.

I just bought and installed the update. I'm thinking this will be the last time they get any of my money, however.


----------



## usern4cr (Oct 21, 2020)

SeeManRun said:


> Came here to say this. I will be skipping this version; Version 3 had basically no updates. I picked up ACDSee in the hopes that it can manage my library better, since DXO Photolab does nothing but look at files on your hard drive.


If you want a program to manage your files somehow, I'm glad you're happy. But I want to manage my own files in my own folder structures. It's the *only* way to organize them to me. That's one of the reasons I was willing to look into DXO in the first place.


----------



## Bert63 (Oct 21, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> If you want a program to manage your files somehow, I'm glad you're happy. But I want to manage my own files in my own folder structures. It's the *only* way to organize them to me. That's one of the reasons I was willing to look into DXO in the first place.




I'm like you. I hate having to rely on a catalog, or multiple catalogs, or loading unnecessary, bulky files or whatever when I open a program. I have a beast of a PC and DxO loads too slowly for me sometimes..

Then again, I'm not a "professional" but the size of my photography folder might make someone think otherwise.

I am borderline OCD (and you can delete the "borderline" part) when it comes to hard drive management, backups, disc imaging, and photo storage, etc, so DxO's decision to let us "pick a folder, any folder" is perfect AFIC. I can see why someone might want/need to do it in another fashion, but I'm most comfortable when I'm in control of what's going on.

YMMV.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 21, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> If you want a program to manage your files somehow, I'm glad you're happy. But I want to manage my own files in my own folder structures. It's the *only* way to organize them to me. That's one of the reasons I was willing to look into DXO in the first place.


Same here. I organise my own folders. Each to his or her own. I find LR very clunky to use, but that’s just me.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 21, 2020)

I tried the new “Deepprime” on some noisy high resolution charts. It is excellent at removing noise but it loses some very fine detail compared with standard prime, but is better thanTopaz. I’ll probably be sticking with the standard Prime noise reduction unless there is excessive noise. I’ll do some testing with some old real images tomorrow.


----------



## Jethro (Oct 21, 2020)

Can someone who has updated check for me whether they now have a profile for the laowa RF 100mm f/2.8 2x available in the new version? I know such a profile should be available to all versions equally, but I now have my doubts ...


----------



## COBRASoft (Oct 21, 2020)

I use dxo for 90+% of my pictures. Photoshop or affinity in very rare (stitch) cases. I hate lrc. I store my pics on my NAS in the folder structure i want. DxO works perfectly this way. Version 4 just came out, no-brainer for me. €58 for upgrading the elite version after buying the r5 is peanuts. From every software i tested, dxo is the best raw converter with enough tools on board to give me final images in most cases. 

I just edited most of my r5 pics in a couple of hours with the new version, no problems so far on windows 10.

P. S. : pl3 gave us the hsl tool which i like a lot more than ps or ap.


----------



## Bert63 (Oct 21, 2020)

Jethro said:


> Can someone who has updated check for me whether they now have a profile for the laowa RF 100mm f/2.8 2x available in the new version? I know such a profile should be available to all versions equally, but I now have my doubts ...




I do not see one.


----------



## gtsviper (Oct 21, 2020)

Jethro said:


> Can someone who has updated check for me whether they now have a profile for the laowa RF 100mm f/2.8 2x available in the new version? I know such a profile should be available to all versions equally, but I now have my doubts ...


Canon, Irex , Samyang, Sigma, Tamaron, Tokina, Voightlander, Ziess


----------



## gtsviper (Oct 21, 2020)

Jethro said:


> Can someone who has updated check for me whether they now have a profile for the laowa RF 100mm f/2.8 2x available in the new version? I know such a profile should be available to all versions equally, but I now have my doubts ...





Jethro said:


> Can someone who has updated check for me whether they now have a profile for the laowa RF 100mm f/2.8 2x available in the new version? I know such a profile should be available to all versions equally, but I now have my doubts ...


No Laowa modules for R or R5.


----------



## Bert63 (Oct 21, 2020)

In my opinion, running on my machine, it is a better program in every way.

Absolutely zero issues on my Windows 10 box. Local adjustments also seems to run faster as well. I like the new workspace setup.

I still see no option to export your custom palette so that's a disappointment, but it's the only disappointment so far.


----------



## usern4cr (Oct 22, 2020)

AlanF said:


> I tried the new “Deepprime” on some noisy high resolution charts. It is excellent at removing noise but it loses some very fine detail compared with standard prime, but is better thanTopaz. I’ll probably be sticking with the standard Prime noise reduction unless there is excessive noise. I’ll do some testing with some old real images tomorrow.


Do you have a choice between 2 different prime versions in the latest PL4?


----------



## AlanF (Oct 22, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> Do you have a choice between 2 different prime versions in the latest PL4?


Yes. 3 noise reduction choices of the usual Fast, Prime, and now DeepPrime.


----------



## COBRASoft (Oct 22, 2020)

I did some tests with 100-2500 iso. Deepprime was always better than prime for me (noise and detail) . It even removed some noticeable moiré that normal prime didn't remove. All R5 files though.


----------



## snappy604 (Oct 22, 2020)

Bert63 said:


> It isn’t the price, it’s the principle. I went round and round with tech support just last week about when the software would be updated to support the R5.
> 
> They said it was a priority (eventually) but never mentioned it would be a paid upgrade, or that you’d have to get the entire new version to receive what should be a basic update for all current users.
> 
> ...



I find the same with On1... there are valid reasons to pay for upgrades and we do have to support to continue development but it gets to the point it feels like you're basically on the subscription model. Most of the upgrades they do are irrelevant to me. The ones that matter to me get ignored (for on1). I cringe but I might give the trial a go.. 30 days at least.. adobe is only 7 days.


----------



## Jethro (Oct 22, 2020)

Bert63 said:


> I do not see one.


Ain't wasting my money for an update then ...

It's a shame because the noise reduction is genuinely second to none. Although I'll be honest Adobe have improved over the last couple of years.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 22, 2020)

AlanF said:


> They have to have a continuing income to keep the program updated. Adobe does it by ransomeware, and you have to pay to keep on just using. DxO upgrades at the end of October each year. If you haven't upgraded your camera to a brand new model, you don't have to buy the upgraded software.


How is agreeing to a subscription 'ransomware'? 

I can understand not wanting to pay monthly for software even though considering the value of the equipment we talk about paying less than $8 a month is a pittance. But isn't that how cell providers work their contracts? What about insurance, or mortgages, or car loans? If you stop paying you lose the use of that thing regardless of how much you have paid. But that isn''t the case with Adobe, if you stop paying you can still use the software just in a more limited form. All your work is saved, you can export all or any of your photos at any time, you can print your photos etc etc. I really don't think "ransomware" is a fair or accurate description.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 22, 2020)

bbasiaga said:


> Yeah, I think Adobe ruined it for us with the subscription thing. At least with the permanent license stuff what ou have will work forever with its current feature set. *As far as I understand it, if you stop paying Adobe, you can't even open the program, no matter how many thousands you have spent over the years. *
> 
> I'd still mostly rather pay to have something, knowing I may have to pay to upgrade versions in the future if I get new gear. But for some I could see how the subscription model is better. Maybe akin to lease vs/ buy on a car - normally its a great deal for the car company, and occasionally its a good deal for the driver.
> 
> -Brian



No that is not true. You can open the Lightroom for ever, you can export any or all of your photos, you can print your photos in the Lightroom Print module. All of your Develop settings are maintained and are stored and you can export any or all of your photos as shot or with all your develop settings applied. What you can't do is change the develop settings or import new photos.


Adobe were in deep financial trouble before "the subscription thing" because people simply didn't upgrade which meant little money went into the pot to keep developing features including compatibility for new cameras, formats, file types, lenses etc etc. We, the consumers, forced Adobe into that subscription thing.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 22, 2020)

I've now done a test of PRIME vs DeepPRIME on a real image. It's a Migrant Hawker Dragonfly taken on the R5 with the 100-400mm II, 2xTC, f/11, 1/160s iso 1000. I did this a week or two ago using Adobe LR, followed by Topaz Sharpen-Stabilize and Topaz Denoise to get the best image then. Now, I did better straight off with DxO PL4, and very quickly. The two full images are at the bottom, reduced by the site to fit. At the top, is a comparison of the eyes at 100% crop. For PRIME alone, the very top (or on the left if your screen is narrow), you can just make out the individual lenses. Below (or on the right), they are less distinct with DeepPRIME. It fits in with my chart testing last night, DeepPRIME does remove the tiniest of detail, but still damn good.


----------



## COBRASoft (Oct 22, 2020)

Quite some difference in your example indeed. Very interesting and a very nice picture!

Here's an example of the moiré I was talking about. Left/first picture is DeepPrime, bottom/right is normal Prime.
It is 100% crop of a dress. Be sure to watch in original size.

Edit: Taken with R5, 85mm 1.2, 500 ISO.


----------



## CDR (Oct 22, 2020)

Good to see a non-subscription-based option especially for those of us who have bought the R5 as a retirement gift for one's self - LOL. 

Will definitely check out the free trial (windows) as not many other options at present other than Canons free but super slow DPP - or am I wrong? Any feedback yet on whether it opens compressed raw images?

I must add I loved the ON1 Raw 2020 workflow/performance when I trialled that, but without R5 support it's just currently of no value.


----------



## COBRASoft (Oct 22, 2020)

From what I see, DxO has become even faster/more optimal using multicore cpu's.
I won't be upgrading my body anytime soon, so this € 58 is well spent for a couple of years... Unless DxO PL5 brings amazing new features I want.


----------



## HenryL (Oct 22, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> No that is not true. You can open the Lightroom for ever, you can export any or all of your photos, you can print your photos in the Lightroom Print module. All of your Develop settings are maintained and are stored and you can export any or all of your photos as shot or with all your develop settings applied. What you can't do is change the develop settings or import new photos.


It's not even as bad as that - you actually can still import new photos and use all the DAM features. When the subscription ends, you lose the Develop and Map modules, and the ability to sync to mobile editions.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 22, 2020)

The Dragonfly was a low iso image. I just took some horrible shots at iso 5000 and 800mm and took extreme crops of a few hundred pixels. Don't take the quality seriously, just look at the noise. You can see which is the DeepPRIME, the smaller one. PRIME is really good but DeepPRIME is even better very noisy images. So, for me, at low iso, PRIME, high iso (and Moire) DeepPRIME.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 22, 2020)

CDR said:


> Good to see a non-subscription-based option especially for those of us who have bought the R5 as a retirement gift for one's self - LOL.
> 
> Will definitely check out the free trial (windows) as not many other options at present other than Canons free but super slow DPP - or am I wrong? Any feedback yet on whether it opens compressed raw images?
> 
> I must add I loved the ON1 Raw 2020 workflow/performance when I trialled that, but without R5 support it's just currently of no value.


It opens CRAW - that's all I shoot in. Canon did a great job creating CRAW, with what appears to be lossless compression to all intents and purposes.


----------



## COBRASoft (Oct 22, 2020)

My original image of the dress doesn't have the moiré issues. Prime caused it. I think I'll prefer to give up a littlebit of finest detail for cleaner images. 
Fyi, i haven't touched the noise sliders. Perhaps find tuning those can help as well.


----------



## usern4cr (Oct 22, 2020)

AlanF said:


> I've now done a test of PRIME vs DeepPRIME on a real image. It's a Migrant Hawker Dragonfly taken on the R5 with the 100-400mm II, 2xTC, f/11, 1/160s iso 1000. I did this a week or two ago using Adobe LR, followed by Topaz Sharpen-Stabilize and Topaz Denoise to get the best image then. Now, I did better straight off with DxO PL4, and very quickly. The two full images are at the bottom, reduced by the site to fit. At the top, is a comparison of the eyes at 100% crop. For PRIME alone, the very top (or on the left if your screen is narrow), you can just make out the individual lenses. Below (or on the right), they are less distinct with DeepPRIME. It fits in with my chart testing last night, DeepPRIME does remove the tiniest of detail, but still damn good.
> 
> View attachment 193498
> View attachment 193499
> ...


Beautiful photos, AlanF!

The 1st (Prime) definitely looks better than the 2nd (DeepPrime). But it may be because they are using higher values for sharpening/contrast etc. Whatever the reason, to me Prime looks much better when pixel peeping.

Thanks for the post!


----------



## usern4cr (Oct 22, 2020)

COBRASoft said:


> Quite some difference in your example indeed. Very interesting and a very nice picture!
> 
> Here's an example of the moiré I was talking about. Left/first picture is DeepPrime, bottom/right is normal Prime.
> It is 100% crop of a dress. Be sure to watch in original size.
> ...


Thanks for the post, CobraSoft.
That's quite an improvement in moire reduction with the DeepPrime!


----------



## usern4cr (Oct 22, 2020)

AlanF said:


> It opens CRAW - that's all I shoot in. Canon did a great job creating CRAW, with what appears to be lossless compression to all intents and purposes.


So all of your photo posts were from a compressed raw image? Impressive. I've been wondering which format I should use (raw or Craw) to shoot in, knowing I'll use DXO to initially process them. If you think Craw is the thing to use then it's really good to hear. Those 45MP files can get really big, especially if you take lots of them.


----------



## Bert63 (Oct 22, 2020)

AlanF said:


> The Dragonfly was a low iso image. I just took some horrible shots at iso 5000 and 800mm and took extreme crops of a few hundred pixels. Don't take the quality seriously, just look at the noise. You can see which is the DeepPRIME, the smaller one. PRIME is really good but DeepPRIME is even better very noisy images. So, for me, at low iso, PRIME, high iso (and Moire) DeepPRIME.
> 
> View attachment 193509
> View attachment 193510




Alan - thanks for taking the time to do this for all of us. I agree with your assessment (for what that’s worth) but wanted to say thanks - you always provide solid emotion-free information and it’s very much appreciated.


----------



## Bert63 (Oct 22, 2020)

So after spending most of the evening (and into the night) yesterday using the new version I’m ready to say it’s the best RAW developer I’ve ever used.

- I love the ability to move all the adjustment palettes wherever I like. I moved all the tools I use to the right side - histogram on top, then my custom user palette, then the metadata information module (minimized), and then finally the preset editor palette (minimized). This leaves the entire left side and bottom of my monitor open for a huge view of the photo being developed. I have my thumbnail loupe detached and running in my left monitor.

- I love how they‘ve categorized the different sections of the developing process into different palette ’tabs’ that you can quickly click through. This might be the best thing they’ve done for this program since it’s inception. It’s perfect.

- I love how you can switch between your user palette and all active modules with one click.

- I think the addition of the DeepPrime tech is legitimate. I was skeptical that there would be a real difference between DeepPrime and Prime, but there is. The three modes of noise reduction available reaffirms my opinion that DxO has the best noise reduction available in a RAW developer ‘suite’..

- Local adjustment features seem to work faster and smoother. Previously if I had used the local adjustment tools to any significant degree the program would lag a bit. Not anymore. I purposely overused the repair tool to see if I could recreate the effect and it never lagged to any degree. It was never a major issue - my machine is purpose-built and more than capable of processing pretty much anything you can throw at it, but what I perceived as lag in the local adjustments isn’t there anymore.

- My only con is that there is still no option to export your custom user palette.

Share your thoughts, likes and dislikes.


----------



## bbasiaga (Oct 22, 2020)

@Bert63 

I downloaded the free trial a couple days ago. This is the first raw developer i've used, besides DPP 4.x. 

I'm not a major editor. On the scale from straight-out-of-camera to digital art, I'm way to the left. So I don't have any experience beyond exposure, some highlight/shadow adjustments, white balance, and other basic stuff like that. 

I took a stab at editing an image that I really liked and had done my 'best' editing job ever on with DPP and CS6. The auto feature of this software did all that for me and made an almost identical image in about a half second. WIth a few of the built in tools, I made something even better. It brought a portion of the shadow area up too much for my taste, but I may be able how to figure out how to reduce that. 

So my first experience was 'wow'. I tried a few more images, and was able to easily pull a lot of detail from a groundhog picture I had, and I messed with a twilight/sky image of the recent comet that came out pretty well using the clarity tool it has built in. 

A question I would ask others...since I have tried not other software like this, how does it compare to like Corel Aftershot, On 1, Capture One and others? 

-Brian


----------



## zim (Oct 22, 2020)

AlanF said:


> The Dragonfly was a low iso image. I just took some horrible shots at iso 5000 and 800mm and took extreme crops of a few hundred pixels. Don't take the quality seriously, just look at the noise. You can see which is the DeepPRIME, the smaller one. PRIME is really good but DeepPRIME is even better very noisy images. So, for me, at low iso, PRIME, high iso (and Moire) DeepPRIME.
> 
> View attachment 193509
> View attachment 193510


This

Horses for courses, great to have these options

Thanks all that have taken the time to do these comparisons, really helpful.


----------



## COBRASoft (Oct 22, 2020)

bbasiaga said:


> @Bert63
> 
> I downloaded the free trial a couple days ago. This is the first raw developer i've used, besides DPP 4.x.
> 
> ...


Perhaps it was the default smart lighting set to 25.you can reduce that slider to 10 or so.

Edit: be sure to try the clearview tool. Start with 10,try 50...you'll probably end up somewhere in between.


----------



## zim (Oct 22, 2020)

bbasiaga said:


> @Bert63
> 
> I downloaded the free trial a couple days ago. This is the first raw developer i've used, besides DPP 4.x.
> 
> ...


Can't say about the others but my experience of C1 is that it to is excellent, some find the interface a bit 'quirky' I love it. The big thing is the way it handles colour though, particularly skin tones. If I was regularly doing portraiture there would be no other choice for me.


----------



## usern4cr (Oct 22, 2020)

EDIT: Never mind regarding the query below - I just heard back from DXO and there is no way to do this currently.

HELP (please): I bought the PL4 upgrade. But I still can't do a simple thing I keep asking them for. Maybe someone here knows how to better do this:

Currently, when you enter the "Customize" tab you see your small thumbnail images on the bottom area. On the top left of that bottom area is an icon for "Select item to display". If you click on it and scroll down to the bottom of the list, you'll see the 6 lines of 0:5 stars and a checkbox for each of them which you want to display. If you toggle one of them (on or off) it will do so but then closes that screen. If you want to toggle another one of the 6 display star choices you have to repeat the whole procedure to do it, one at a time. I change all of these options all the time, and it really irritates me that it takes so long to do this. I don't see any new "tool" to display the 6 display star lines in the tools area on the right so they could be quickly changed, or any way to make the 6 display star lines be at the top of the long list of lines instead of at the bottom of the list.

Does anyone know if there is any other quicker way to change these display star settings?

EDIT: Never mind regarding the above query - I just heard back from DXO and there is no way to do this currently.


----------



## Bert63 (Oct 22, 2020)

bbasiaga said:


> @Bert63
> 
> I downloaded the free trial a couple days ago. This is the first raw developer i've used, besides DPP 4.x.
> 
> ...




For me, as I said, this is the best one out there. If you need cataloging then Lightroom could be better. Lightroom also has more presets if you’re into that kind of thing.

I think Capture One is nice, but DxO is better, faster, and more intuitive FOR ME.

I’ve tried ON1 but prefer DxO, then Capture One in that order.

I’ve never used Corel Aftershot. After a quick read of its features I can’t imagine it being as good as DxO - even the previous version.


----------



## HenryL (Oct 22, 2020)

bbasiaga said:


> @Bert63
> 
> A question I would ask others...since I have tried not other software like this, how does it compare to like Corel Aftershot, On 1, Capture One and others?
> 
> -Brian


Hi, Brian. I've not used Aftershot, but have officially ditched ON1 because of higher than acceptable crashes, glitches and lockups. This was on multiple versions, and across two iMacs, one MacBook Pro, and one Windows 10 machine. Never did get a complete Lightroom migration despite weeks of back and forth with their support team. Performance was mediocre speed wise. I'm not just deleting their emails every day with upgrade offers to yet another version.

Capture One and DXO are my favorite new tools. In my opinion C1 is more capable overall, but DXO is close. I still use Lightroom for cataloging, printing and such, and the current update is pretty good but for the fact that it still takes custom profiles to get the best output. I hope to one day ditch Lightroom, but I've yet to find a better asset manager. During the import process it creates a folder structure that is also easily usable in the other two programs. I cull here so if/when I go to C1/DXO there are only the keepers. 

I'm still learning C1 and DXO, especially DXO because since I got the R5 it's been useless for me. Looking forward to digging in deeper on both and hopefully coming out with one to rule them all.


----------



## pj1974 (Oct 23, 2020)

I have been using DxO "Optics Pro" (as the version of their software was then called) since 2006. I have bought maybe 3 versions since, basically whenever I upgraded my main DSLR. That has saved me a *lot *of money compared to both the Adobe software license and their subsequent subscription model..

Over the past 14 years, I have found DxO really does a great job in me batch-processing images (e.g. portraits, landscapes, high ISO, macro, astro, etc). So yes, I don't buy new DxO software for the new 'features' as much as when it is only the new version that will support new cameras/lens combinations. (I also have and occasionally use DxO ViewPoint).

I expect to upgrade to the latest version of DxO after I purchase a R5 and RF lenses. My current version of DxO Optics Pro works great for my existing range of DSLRs, M5 and suite of lenses. (Indeed, to confirm, I have not bought a PhotoLab version yet). I can understand some people's frustration at just having recently purchased a previous version and then either needing, or feeling like they need the new version.

FWIW, my interaction with DxO customer service (admittedly 10+ years ago) was v positive. Keep in mind the big picture, for the majority of photographers, there's no need to purchase every version unless there are compatibility issues (which would also mean they are updating their photography gear on a constant basis).

My preferred mode of operation for post processing is to organise photos using a folder structure (chronological and by favourites, and then best of the best into genre). Then back up onto external HDDs in that format (both RAWs and JPEG). The viewing software I prefer is ACDSee. For detailed post-processing work I use Affinity Photo, which I also use that for stitching panoramas and other aspects (e.g. focus stacking, etc). I also only will purchase new versions of ACDSee and Affinity Photo when the existing versions I use no longer support my current photography gear (e.g. previewing raws, etc).

I look forward to DxO continuing as a great option. Their raw processing, noise reduction (esp PRIME) are very effective. I look forward to the noise and de-aliasing combined option, and potentially enhanced user system, though I find their existing one is pretty good - it has some areas of weakness, but overall it's functional.

PJ


----------



## der_skeptiker (Oct 23, 2020)

bbasiaga said:


> Yeah, I think Adobe ruined it for us with the subscription thing. At least with the permanent license stuff what ou have will work forever with its current feature set. As far as I understand it, if you stop paying Adobe, you can't even open the program, no matter how many thousands you have spent over the years.
> 
> I'd still mostly rather pay to have something, knowing I may have to pay to upgrade versions in the future if I get new gear. But for some I could see how the subscription model is better. Maybe akin to lease vs/ buy on a car - normally its a great deal for the car company, and occasionally its a good deal for the driver.
> 
> -Brian



Not really. If you do not pay Adobe any further you can continue to open Lightroom, see and browse your pictures, export them and make only basic development adjustments without detailed control. All in library view only. Development pane is disabled (so Camera RAW is disabled). What will happen to the other Lightroom panes and Photoshop I don't know, I guess Photoshop will not start.

Cheers
Jens


----------



## SeeManRun (Oct 23, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> If you want a program to manage your files somehow, I'm glad you're happy. But I want to manage my own files in my own folder structures. It's the *only* way to organize them to me. That's one of the reasons I was willing to look into DXO in the first place.


That isn't quite what I mean. I would like a one time re-org of my photos to move them into a folder structure I define. I have thousands, and windows import does a poor job with iphone photos. I would like to fix them all so they get sorted into shot date regardless of the camera that took them. It is proving nigh impossible to find something that will do this.


----------



## SecureGSM (Oct 24, 2020)

SeeManRun said:


> That isn't quite what I mean. I would like a one time re-org of my photos to move them into a folder structure I define. I have thousands, and windows import does a poor job with iphone photos. I would like to fix them all so they get sorted into shot date regardless of the camera that took them. It is proving nigh impossible to find something that will do this.


Take a look at this little app:









Easy File Organizer


Organize Files, Folders and Desktop on Windows, Mac and Linux



qiplex.com





One of the features:
Auto-create multi-level folder structure based on file type, extension or date. It seems that this is what you are after.


----------



## SteveC (Oct 24, 2020)

SeeManRun said:


> That isn't quite what I mean. I would like a one time re-org of my photos to move them into a folder structure I define. I have thousands, and windows import does a poor job with iphone photos. I would like to fix them all so they get sorted into shot date regardless of the camera that took them. It is proving nigh impossible to find something that will do this.



I believe Lightroom lets you mass "tag" pictures. you could select 20 of them and put in, say, the name of the person in the picture ("Billy Bob"), the location ("Uluru") and so on, then later on search for Billy Bob and get not just the pics from Uluru (from that folder) but the pics of him in East Slobbovia, Alabama as well, from some other folder, as long as you tagged them with his name as well. Or maybe search for all chimpanzee photos from different trips to different zoos. (Hopefully Billy Bob isn't one of the chimps.)

I'd like to find a way to do that tagging, then searching later.


----------



## zim (Oct 24, 2020)

OK so I thought I'd check v4 out and this is my thoughts so far 'upgrading' from v1 fwiw
1. When I went into my account I got this


Confused I continued to the download, installed and applied activation code, looks like I've got the full licenced version, can't see any 30 day trial stuff which is what I was expecting?
2. I's a separate install location so have both v1 and v4 again I'd have expected it to 'see' the previous install and do an upgrade so I can't help but assume this is a 30 day trial but it's really not obvious.
3. Really like the new layout and those little smart workspace buttons, nice logical progression, don't think I need to create my own workspaces any more.
4. Deep Prime. This is going to take me a lot more time to work out when to use Prime or Deep Prime. Looks like you can be a lot more aggressive with the luminous settings on Deep Prime but there's a balance to be had and I'm still working through that (between unsharp mask, micro contrast and lens sharpness)
but so far comparing previous renderings with Prime I'm pretty impressed especially when there is a lot of sky (Aircraft are one of my main subjects)
Have to say first that everything I do is for print so they are probably over sharp for other use, anyway
Two examples (renders unaltered in Affinity Photo) from a 7D, the Prime jpg is the original render I used which requires a fair amount of work in Affinity Photo to get it to a printable state. The Deep Prime is clearly cleaner but just as sharp, still needs a bit of work to get it to a the same printable state but a lot lot less work.



5. Not an ounce of trouble with the install or when in use.

I also really enjoy doing pano stitching so I'm going to check those out next but happy so far!


----------



## COBRASoft (Oct 25, 2020)

SeeManRun said:


> That isn't quite what I mean. I would like a one time re-org of my photos to move them into a folder structure I define. I have thousands, and windows import does a poor job with iphone photos. I would like to fix them all so they get sorted into shot date regardless of the camera that took them. It is proving nigh impossible to find something that will do this.


What about Adobe Bridge?


----------



## Fischer (Oct 26, 2020)

Think DxO has a lot to offer to those who just want to "get the job done". Currently not a user as I have the full Adobe package. But I may revert later as I find less and less time to edit my shots. To me the biggest improvement DxO (and others) could do was to offer modules in the more specialized processing market i.e. things like astro, underwater, gifs, arcitecture etc. Things doable with other software but can be made much easier. Basic postprocessing is widely covered by now. And soon everyone will be offering AI solutions as well.


----------



## SeeManRun (Oct 26, 2020)

COBRASoft said:


> What about Adobe Bridge?


I have Bridge CS6. I will investigate how this could be done. Main reason I had to move on from it was it doesn't support my 5D Mark IV.


----------



## SeeManRun (Oct 26, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> Take a look at this little app:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Will take a look. One issue is I need the program to be aware of meta data since I want the date taken to be the main driver on where it goes rather than modified date or created date. Will see if this will work though, thanks for the idea!


----------



## COBRASoft (Oct 27, 2020)

Maybe directory opus is an option. You would have to create the 'script' yourself, but the forum has a lot of answers.


----------

