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

[AlanF]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 ...