DxO Photolab 7 - InDepth Review - VS Lightroom VS Capture 1

I have PureRaw2 and V3 is of no use to me because users here have stated that XD tends to over sharpen and is now adding false detail.
You spent much time explaining that opinions on these things differ ... and indeed they do. So why trust what others say about XD? My guess is that they aren't shooting the same subjects you shoot with the same camera and lenses you use.
Some of the top super users who said that are in this thread. I didn't expect inaccurate information.
Maybe it's not inaccurate for them, but still inaccurate for other people. This is actually a common occurrence.
I'm in my 30-day trial period with PL7, and am now looking at the difference between DP and DPXD (which is not available in my current PL5). I haven't seen objectionable artifacts or anything that I'd call false detail. What I've seen is (slight) improvement. It does take much longer than DP to do its work on my system, though, and the results are only visible when pixel peeping. I'm not sure how that equation will work for me in actual practice.
You really need the control PL offers.
Maybe there is a difference between XD as implemented in PureRAW vs. PhotoLab, but I've been using it at its default setting with no adjustment.
While DXO added Noise level adjustments the super users said it is missing lens sharpening.
This is what I see in the PureRAW documentation: 'The support for cameras and lenses (using DxO Optics Modules) is exactly the same as that offered by DxO PhotoLab'.

Whom should we believe?
I tried PR3. I didn't see any lens sharpening option. Only NR levels which was new.
Again, from the documentation:

Lens softness: Defaults to Standard (which is equivalent to the DxO PhotoLab Lens Sharpness setting, with the global slider set at +1), you can also opt for a soft, strong or hard intensity. Optical sharpness improves image detail and overall image sharpness from the center to the edge of the frame.

I've personally never used PhotoLab's extra controls associated with lens sharpness correction, so I might be perfectly happy with that aspect of PureRAW despite what others think.
The only reason I responded is the tool that that works the best for your needs is the best. Opinions about being best are subjective. If someone comes out and says LrC the best I would step up and not agree with that either.
Right. So maybe you should personally test the latest version of PureRAW if you think it's potentially helpful for you.
Thanks for the suggestion but I won't. Like others that don't like Adobe, I don't like DXO's business model nor their customer support. It's personal thing and I fully respect others who don't Adobe. I only pipe in if I see what I think is deliberate disinformation. It was pretty bad six years but is seldom these days.
Well ... when personal opinions don't match, it's sometimes hard to tell the information from the disinformation.
It's not about personal opinions.
Yes, it's very frequently about personal opinions.
When LR went subscription this place was a zoo. People with 10 -20 posts coming in and saying LrC will take your files to cloud and eventually Adobe will hold them ransom. No matter how much evidence you provided that LrC required local file storage it didn't matter. They kept at it. I was there.
Getting facts wrong is a real thing, of course. But assuming that personal opinions don't influence what people say is a mistake.
 
Last edited:
I would love to like DxO. Heck, I even bought a license last year. But without sensible keyboard shortcuts, it's just not working out for me. Add to that the lack of AI masking and the ridiculous price...

As I said, I'd love to like it. But I don't. I choose Lightroom with LrSuperKeys or C1's speed edit keys over DXO every day. The keyboard shortcuts and the AI masking make such a tremendous difference to my editing speed that DxO is just not a viable option any more to me.

If they ever implement a similar system, I'll be first in line to try it out.
 
I have PureRaw2 and V3 is of no use to me because users here have stated that XD tends to over sharpen and is now adding false detail.
You spent much time explaining that opinions on these things differ ... and indeed they do. So why trust what others say about XD? My guess is that they aren't shooting the same subjects you shoot with the same camera and lenses you use.
Some of the top super users who said that are in this thread. I didn't expect inaccurate information.
Maybe it's not inaccurate for them, but still inaccurate for other people. This is actually a common occurrence.
I'm in my 30-day trial period with PL7, and am now looking at the difference between DP and DPXD (which is not available in my current PL5). I haven't seen objectionable artifacts or anything that I'd call false detail. What I've seen is (slight) improvement. It does take much longer than DP to do its work on my system, though, and the results are only visible when pixel peeping. I'm not sure how that equation will work for me in actual practice.
You really need the control PL offers.
Maybe there is a difference between XD as implemented in PureRAW vs. PhotoLab, but I've been using it at its default setting with no adjustment.
While DXO added Noise level adjustments the super users said it is missing lens sharpening.
This is what I see in the PureRAW documentation: 'The support for cameras and lenses (using DxO Optics Modules) is exactly the same as that offered by DxO PhotoLab'.

Whom should we believe?
I tried PR3. I didn't see any lens sharpening option. Only NR levels which was new.
Again, from the documentation:

Lens softness: Defaults to Standard (which is equivalent to the DxO PhotoLab Lens Sharpness setting, with the global slider set at +1), you can also opt for a soft, strong or hard intensity. Optical sharpness improves image detail and overall image sharpness from the center to the edge of the frame.

I've personally never used PhotoLab's extra controls associated with lens sharpness correction, so I might be perfectly happy with that aspect of PureRAW despite what others think.
I guess they added that since March. Good for them.
The only reason I responded is the tool that that works the best for your needs is the best. Opinions about being best are subjective. If someone comes out and says LrC the best I would step up and not agree with that either.
Right. So maybe you should personally test the latest version of PureRAW if you think it's potentially helpful for you.
Thanks for the suggestion but I won't. Like others that don't like Adobe, I don't like DXO's business model nor their customer support. It's personal thing and I fully respect others who don't Adobe. I only pipe in if I see what I think is deliberate disinformation. It was pretty bad six years but is seldom these days.
Well ... when personal opinions don't match, it's sometimes hard to tell the information from the disinformation.
It's not about personal opinions.
Yes, it's very frequently about personal opinions.
When LR went subscription this place was a zoo. People with 10 -20 posts coming in and saying LrC will take your files to cloud and eventually Adobe will hold them ransom. No matter how much evidence you provided that LrC required local file storage it didn't matter. They kept at it. I was there.
Getting facts wrong is a real thing, of course. But assuming that personal opinions don't influence what people say is a mistake.
 
DxO did not do anything wrong.
That's just an opinion and based on what I have read here and elsewhere I, like some other people, disagree.
It's not its fault if people buy the wrong products, then don't ask for an immediate refund. Quite simply, DxO did not rip off the OP.
That's totally irrelevant because whether anyone chooses to ask for a refund or not doesn’t determine whether they were actually ripped off or not.
 
Last edited:
DxO did not do anything wrong.
That's just an opinion and based on what I have read here and elsewhere I, like some other people, disagree.
So what did it do wrong?
It's not its fault if people buy the wrong products, then don't ask for an immediate refund. Quite simply, DxO did not rip off the OP.
That's totally irrelevant because whether anyone chooses to ask for a refund or not doesn’t determine whether they were actually ripped off or not.
DxO offered a 30% discount if any pair if its products were purchased together, and duly delivered. How does that count as a rip-off?
 
You stated your view and others have disagreed. By continuing this issue you are hijacking the op's thread onto an unrelated topic.

If you need to discuss further then start your own thread. In any case this issue isn't being discussed only here.
 
You stated your view and others have disagreed. By continuing this issue you are hijacking the op's thread onto an unrelated topic.

If you need to discuss further then start your own thread. In any case this issue isn't being discussed only here.
I have no wish to continue this 'diiscussion' (not the word I'd have chosen), but it would have been helpful if you hadn't completely dodged the question of what you think DxO did wrong. A simple factual statement would suffice, but I'm not expecting one.
 
You stated your view and others have disagreed. By continuing this issue you are hijacking the op's thread onto an unrelated topic.

If you need to discuss further then start your own thread. In any case this issue isn't being discussed only here.
I have no wish to continue this 'diiscussion' (not the word I'd have chosen), but it would have been helpful if you hadn't completely dodged the question of what you think DxO did wrong. A simple factual statement would suffice, but I'm not expecting one.
Had you started your own thread as requested you would have got a factual answer but you chose to continue to try to hijack this thread. If you are not willing to start your own thread then I'm not going to give you opportunities to hijack this one.

I'm discussing the issue elsewhere.
 
.. I just wanted to say that I like the program and what it does. My only complaint is that the sold me the software as a "special price bundle" with "PureRAW2," which was a rip-off, because PureRAW is just a subset of PhotoLab. No need to pay for both products.
Why did you agree to that? If the cost was any more than PhotoLab by itself, it was not a wise purchase. I don't see such a bundle (which would indeed be an absurd combination) on the current DxO buying page.
Yes, it is absurd. They bundled it as a Black Friday special, I believe. I didn’t understand that the PureRAW features are all part of PhotoLab.
Was it DxO itself that created that bundle, or someone else? I don't recall DxO ever creating discounted bundles. It does usually do BF discounts, but that's on individual products. There's never usually any financial incentive to buy bundles, and certainly never illogical bundles like that.
Yes, I bought the bundle from them. I looked it up. It wasn’t so much a bundle as a “buy two products and get 30% off,’ and I didn’t understand that the second product was a subset of the first.

d508ece4f7ea40eebdef917af81799b4.jpg
Ah, that's entirely down to you then. You should have done some basic research about what the products did before buying a random pair of them. You could have bought ViewPoint and/or FilmPack as add-ons to PhotoLab.
Not necessarily - theirs an aspect of scam here and it’s not appropriate for a company to sell someone goods knowing that it is completely unnecessary just to cash in on it. If a sales person was involved, that is poor business and reflects bad judgment just to get over on someone.
It's very unlikely that a sales person was involved. DxO's sales page has long been automated.
It’s a reflection of the company itself. If it was just a computer, he could have asked the company for a refund after realizing the dupe.
He might have got a refund if he'd asked promptly. It doesn't sound like he did.
PL has a good product but I wonder about their sale ethics.
It's hardly DxO's fault if people buy the wrong products without doing any research about what the products do. DxO provides plenty of information about the functionality of its products, including full reference manuals freely available to anyone, and free 30-day trials. What more could it be expected to do to protect ignorant buyers from rushing to buy products they don't need?

After all, this might have been a perfectly legitimate transaction, if two people got together, one needing PL and another one needing PR, and pooled their purchases to get the 30% discount.
I made my point. One can always justify around it.
DxO did not do anything wrong. It's not its fault if people buy the wrong products, then don't ask for an immediate refund. Quite simply, DxO did not rip off the OP.
If it was PL6, it’s probably too late to ask for a refund. But a company with honest intentions would certainly consider his issue, which supports loyalty.
Yes, if he asked for an immediate refund for PR2. But not 12 months later.
It could be worth the effort to ask for a refund or an exchange of product. It would be interesting to see what they say.
"You should have asked within 30 days of buying the wrong product, not 12 months later."
Just to clarify - the “you” here is the “royal you”, not me.
I think the “you” was me and I’m not royal.
 
No kidding
 
Andy is probably right; when considered only as a raw editor, PhotoLab is truly excellent, in my experience.

But my workflow benefits from features beyond those core abilities. Other programs offer DAM, performance, AI Masking, and printing abilities that leave PhotoLab behind.
No AI masking in Photolab yet, really?
 
Considering we all have different opinions as to what makes a good RAW developer none of them can be considered the best for everybody. It is entirely possible that Photo Lab is the best for the greatest number of people. If so it could be argued it is the "best".

I never use a RAW developer for cataloging because I have my own system and use FastStone. Also, all my cameras are well-supported. Based on that I would say that for me DXO Photo Lab is the best RAW developer. Back when I used Lightroom I turned off its cataloging feature. I could never master its noise reduction to my liking. After a photo shoot, I transfer my RAW files to a hard drive, Open them in DXO, and batch-process them all in PL6. As far as I can tell PL7 doesn't offer me anything I want over 6 so I'll wait for PL8 next year to upgrade.
Can you explain how you were able to edit files using Lightroom by turning off its cataloging feature?
It's been a few years so I don't remember exactly but there is a way of doing it. Somebody on these forums actually showed me how. I have my own system of folders and subfolders arranged by Year, month, and event. I was able to allow Lightroom to let me search the folders my way and not Adobe's way. By searching for the proper year and month I can access any particular file or files I want for editing.

--
Tom
 
Considering we all have different opinions as to what makes a good RAW developer none of them can be considered the best for everybody. It is entirely possible that Photo Lab is the best for the greatest number of people.
Imo you are drawing a very long bow there because I would first need to see verifiable sales/subscription numbers for the apps being compared before I would consider your possibility to be even plausible.
I said It is entirely possible not that it is. People will never know unless they try it.
If so it could be argued it is the "best".
My suspicion is that sales/subscription numbers for Adobe's raw converter products are way out in front of anything else.

If they are then using your own logic/reasoning it could be argued they are by far the "best", could it not?
No, because popularity has never been a way to determine which is the best. Adobe is the biggest and one of the oldest and most well-known. They have momentum that fuels their popularity to the point where many users of their products never try anything else.
 
Yes, I bought the bundle from them. I looked it up. It wasn’t so much a bundle as a “buy two products and get 30% off,’ and I didn’t understand that the second product was a subset of the first.

d508ece4f7ea40eebdef917af81799b4.jpg
No offense but you shouldn't blame DXO for your mistake.

--
Tom
 
Considering we all have different opinions as to what makes a good RAW developer none of them can be considered the best for everybody. It is entirely possible that Photo Lab is the best for the greatest number of people.
Imo you are drawing a very long bow there because I would first need to see verifiable sales/subscription numbers for the apps being compared before I would consider your possibility to be even plausible.
I said It is entirely possible not that it is.
Read my post carefully because I clearly said your suggested possibility is drawing a very long bow.

Using your logic and reasoning anyone could also justifiably suggest that Adobe products is the best.
People will never know unless they try it.
Again, using your own logic and reasoning people will not know if ACR is best for them unless they actually try it.

I haven't seen anything that shows most have not tried anything else. Maybe they have and maybe they haven't.
If so it could be argued it is the "best".
My suspicion is that sales/subscription numbers for Adobe's raw converter products are way out in front of anything else.

If they are then using your own logic/reasoning it could be argued they are by far the "best", could it not?
No, because popularity has never been a way to determine which is the best.
Obviously not absolutely determine which is best but if one option is way in front in popularity it is very possible it is the best for those who purchased it.
Adobe is the biggest and one of the oldest and most well-known. They have momentum that fuels their popularity to the point where many users of their products never try anything else.
That is just an opinion because in my experience most have tried at least one other option before making a purchase.
 
Last edited:
Considering we all have different opinions as to what makes a good RAW developer none of them can be considered the best for everybody. It is entirely possible that Photo Lab is the best for the greatest number of people. If so it could be argued it is the "best".

I never use a RAW developer for cataloging because I have my own system and use FastStone. Also, all my cameras are well-supported. Based on that I would say that for me DXO Photo Lab is the best RAW developer. Back when I used Lightroom I turned off its cataloging feature. I could never master its noise reduction to my liking. After a photo shoot, I transfer my RAW files to a hard drive, Open them in DXO, and batch-process them all in PL6. As far as I can tell PL7 doesn't offer me anything I want over 6 so I'll wait for PL8 next year to upgrade.
Can you explain how you were able to edit files using Lightroom by turning off its cataloging feature?
It's been a few years so I don't remember exactly but there is a way of doing it. Somebody on these forums actually showed me how. I have my own system of folders and subfolders arranged by Year, month, and event. I was able to allow Lightroom to let me search the folders my way and not Adobe's way. By searching for the proper year and month I can access any particular file or files I want for editing.
You could do searches but at this point I'd have it is impossible to edit a file in LrC without importing it. If it is not imported it will not show up the LrC folder library thus you can't do anything with it.

Here is my LrC library.

4d6465b09c4c45ba9dc9b436051eb299.jpg

Here is the OS and Canon DPP. I could open any other developer and see this same thing. The only reason years 2006 to 2010 are missing in the LrC library is because I didn't start using Lightroom until 2011.

If I wanted to edit files, folders or a particular year between 2006 and 2010 I'd have to import it.

e05c69b957554eeeb5e94943b01b9f3d.jpg

0c57bdef28314c9fa95f4457f3bf7d07.jpg

--
You just need to keep the forests wet
 
Last edited:
Andy Hutchiinson makes the case that DxO PhotoLab 7 is the best RAW editor.

He looks at Demosaicing, Highlight recovery, sharpening and noise reduction, color, camera and lens correction, masking and more...
I have watched that video too and I have also tried out PL7 on my PC. I found it very easy to use and it produced excellent results with little effort, however I found the masking tools very difficult to understand and use. I also tried ON Raw 2024 and that was even simpler to use but the results were not as good in my opinion. My current workflow is DXO Pure Raw 3, then Luminar Neo and finally Photoscape X Pro, I would like to find that perfect all in one piece of software but I don't think it exists yet!
 
Considering we all have different opinions as to what makes a good RAW developer none of them can be considered the best for everybody. It is entirely possible that Photo Lab is the best for the greatest number of people. If so it could be argued it is the "best".

I never use a RAW developer for cataloging because I have my own system and use FastStone. Also, all my cameras are well-supported. Based on that I would say that for me DXO Photo Lab is the best RAW developer. Back when I used Lightroom I turned off its cataloging feature. I could never master its noise reduction to my liking. After a photo shoot, I transfer my RAW files to a hard drive, Open them in DXO, and batch-process them all in PL6. As far as I can tell PL7 doesn't offer me anything I want over 6 so I'll wait for PL8 next year to upgrade.
Can you explain how you were able to edit files using Lightroom by turning off its cataloging feature?
It's been a few years so I don't remember exactly but there is a way of doing it. Somebody on these forums actually showed me how. I have my own system of folders and subfolders arranged by Year, month, and event. I was able to allow Lightroom to let me search the folders my way and not Adobe's way. By searching for the proper year and month I can access any particular file or files I want for editing.
You could do searches but at this point I'd have it is impossible to edit a file in LrC without importing it. If it is not imported it will not show up the LrC folder library thus you can't do anything with it.

Here is my LrC library.

4d6465b09c4c45ba9dc9b436051eb299.jpg

Here is the OS and Canon DPP. I could open any other developer and see this same thing. The only reason years 2006 to 2010 are missing in the LrC library is because I didn't start using Lightroom until 2011.

If I wanted to edit files, folders or a particular year between 2006 and 2010 I'd have to import it.

e05c69b957554eeeb5e94943b01b9f3d.jpg

0c57bdef28314c9fa95f4457f3bf7d07.jpg
All those files by year are on an external drive. I decided I wanted to edit some files from 2007. I found that folder in Canon's DPP and dragged it to my desktop. I could have used the OS as well. It does not matter whatever you because one mirrors the other. Same goes for LrC. If I move a folder that is in the LrC library that will mirror in the OS and DPP.

ef32838ca08f4fdf9f95515d00fdde52.jpg

That folder has been imported into LrC and I can now edit the files. Since I imported from the desktop and did not give it any location instructions it remained on the desktop. Using LrC I would normally drag that folder into one of existing years in LrC library or create a new folder called 2006. Again that change would be mirrored in the OS and DPP. LrC would have automatically moved that folder off the desktop and to the external drive.

8b7e5d9e47fe457cb0881b4fcb683b65.jpg

Since I dragged that folder from the external drive it copied it (not moved it) so now there are two sets of that folder. What I did was not typical as it was just an example. To keep things tidy I'm going to delete it from the LrC library and it will still be there in OS Library.

The reason for importing files is so LrC's DAM can function correctly. It needs to read the metadata and most importantly it needs to know where the files are located, which can be anywhere.

In case anyone thinks this complex it is not. This was because of the examples. It is simple. After a shoot I plug my card in and pre-cull my files using Canon's DPP. When done I create a folder, drag those files into it and import into LrC.

After the previews are built I drag that folder into the appropriate year on the external drive. I do this using LrC, not the OS. Since LrC moved it, it knows where it is located and I don't have to worry about it. I could also instruct LrC to automate those moves if I wanted to.

A few times I used the OS to move folders but that that was for tens of thousands of files. Replacing an external drive for example. The OS is better at moving a mass amount of files. When that is complete you just have to let LrC know where you moved them.

I have been to this way since 2011. With all the version upgrades which included catalogue upgrades I've never had a single issue.

--
You just need to keep the forests wet
 
Last edited:
Considering we all have different opinions as to what makes a good RAW developer none of them can be considered the best for everybody. It is entirely possible that Photo Lab is the best for the greatest number of people.
Imo you are drawing a very long bow there because I would first need to see verifiable sales/subscription numbers for the apps being compared before I would consider your possibility to be even plausible.
I said It is entirely possible not that it is. People will never know unless they try it.
If so it could be argued it is the "best".
My suspicion is that sales/subscription numbers for Adobe's raw converter products are way out in front of anything else.

If they are then using your own logic/reasoning it could be argued they are by far the "best", could it not?
No, because popularity has never been a way to determine which is the best. Adobe is the biggest and one of the oldest and most well-known. They have momentum that fuels their popularity to the point where many users of their products never try anything else.
I tried C1 Pro at least 3 times. I have PL3 but tried it before buying it. I have PureRaw 2 and tried PR3 but didn't get it. I tried ON1 as well but only purchased NN.

Before LrC I used RAW Shooter (I think that is the correct name) before Adobe bought it and turned it into Lightroom. I owned Bibble Pro and SilkyPix at one the. There was one more when I was using Bibble Pro but I can't remember. Actually SilkyPix created a very nice file. Can't remember why I stopped using it. I still emails from them now and then.
 
Andy Hutchiinson makes the case that DxO PhotoLab 7 is the best RAW editor.

He looks at Demosaicing, Highlight recovery, sharpening and noise reduction, color, camera and lens correction, masking and more...
I have watched that video too and I have also tried out PL7 on my PC. I found it very easy to use and it produced excellent results with little effort, however I found the masking tools very difficult to understand and use. I also tried ON Raw 2024 and that was even simpler to use but the results were not as good in my opinion. My current workflow is DXO Pure Raw 3, then Luminar Neo and finally Photoscape X Pro, I would like to find that perfect all in one piece of software but I don't think it exists yet!
I will give PhotoLab that. Quicker results. However for speed editing between LrC's Adaptive ISO preset and Auto I can produce a decent looking file in seconds. I once did a charity shoot and processed about 500 files in just over an hour. No 3rd party NR. The files didn't need it. I don't mind doing a little extra editing for my hobby work or for more important edits.
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top