Let's see if you are willing to start your own thread on the issue instead of trying to hijack this one onto an unrelated topic.
This isn't the only website where what dxo did wrong is being discussed..
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
DxO Photolab 7 - InDepth Review - VS Lightroom VS Capture 1
- Thread starter Night Pixel
- Start date
This isn't the only website where what dxo did wrong is being discussed..
Copy and paste the entire sentence where you say i said you said one was better than the other
I disagreed with your earlier opinion that it was possible for dxo to be the best for most people.
I disagreed with your opinion
"It is entirely possible that Photo Lab is the best for the greatest number of people."
and gave my reasons.
In any case using your own logic and reasoning then it could also be possible that Adobe's raw converters might also be best for the dxo users who haven't tried ACR and Lr.
Last edited:
Over the years, I have performed many head to head comparisons of various versions of PhotoLab and Capture One. C1 always comes out on top in terms of final output. I realize that it's a subjective judgement on my part, but the overall image quality is more pleasing to my eyes. I have no interest in running more tests in the future.
Also, C1's user interface is way better than PL's.
Also, C1's user interface is way better than PL's.
tbcass
Forum Pro
In the context of the discussion, My point was PL could be best for a greater # of people but we can't know because most people don't use it. Maybe my logical processes are different from yours because in my mind the meaning is obvious.
tbcass
Forum Pro
I stand corrected but my initial point remains the same. The Photo Lab is not the same program as Optics Pro and PL noise reduction must be far more advanced than what Optics Pro had before 2017 when it became Photo Lab. In my mind, the addition of local adjustments makes it a different program.
--
Tom
Yes, your point is clear but using your own reasoning then it is possible that the Adobe raw editors could be best for a greater # of people but we can't know because many do not use them.
So in effect your opinion is redundant because it can be applied to any raw converter app.
tbcass
Forum Pro
I have the standalones in addition to Photo AI. I never use the individual aps any more because Photo AI is as good or better and it's a lot easier to have all the features in a single program.I agree. It will be a while. I kept Topaz Sharpen AI around for that when needed. Paid for and since it opens as a TIFF I'll get a lot of years out of it unless something else comes out.
Topaz still sells it which surprised me. I figured Photo AI would have been mature enough to pull it. That is Topaz's plan. They sell it with a year update support. Sharpen has not had an update since 2022I'm pretty sure 14.0.1 is the latest.
tbcass
Forum Pro
Actually it was MarshalG who hijacked the thread when he complained about buying a bundle he didn't want. I and some others simply stated the mistake was his.
When I was using Topaz I also only used Photo AI and for the same reasons. Not so much at first but as it got better with the updates it was ready.I have the standalones in addition to Photo AI. I never use the individual aps any more because Photo AI is as good or better and it's a lot easier to have all the features in a single program.I agree. It will be a while. I kept Topaz Sharpen AI around for that when needed. Paid for and since it opens as a TIFF I'll get a lot of years out of it unless something else comes out.
Topaz still sells it which surprised me. I figured Photo AI would have been mature enough to pull it. That is Topaz's plan. They sell it with a year update support. Sharpen has not had an update since 2022
I like Topaz but now I can't justify the update renewal after the release of Adobe Denoise AI. I likely would have updated to V2 but I don't even use V1 now. One main factor is I just want to simplify things.
Both in late November 2022 and today, perusing the DxO website should have made clear that, while Photolab is a stand-alone raw conversion and editing program, Pure Raw is essentially a raw conversion program that is part of a workflow with an editing program.
Using the Wayback Machine, I looked at the PureRaw webpage for November 27, 2022, https://web.archive.org/web/20221127050919/https://www.dxo.com/dxo-pureraw/. Near the top of the page it says: "Revolutionize your image quality without disrupting your existing Lightroom Classic or Photoshop workflow." And again: "Get more from your RAW files. Add DxO PureRAW to your existing workflow." And yet again: "Maximize the quality of your RAW files before editing them in Adobe Photoshop, Adobe Lightroom Classic, or other RAW editing software thanks to DxO's exclusive demosaicing, denoising, and lens correction technology."
Clicking two links took one to a General Product Information webpage, https://web.archive.org/web/20221208105114/https://support.dxo.com/hc/en-us/categories/360004540811, which included the following question and answer:
"Do I need DxO PureRAW if I already have DxO PhotoLab? What is the difference?"
"DxO PhotoLab 5 & 6 ELITE Edition users already have access to DeepPRIME, so purchasing the additional software is not necessary unless you wish to have the denoising capabilities available in its own software."
"For users of DxO PhotoLab ESSENTIAL Edition, DxO PureRAW will allow you to use the newest DxO Labs denoising algorithm, but it may be more beneficial to you to just upgrade in your customer account to DxO PhotoLab 6 ELITE Edition."
While it's true that DxO could have further reduced the likelihood of confusion by prospective purchasers unfamiliar with both Photolab and PureRaw by including the General Product Information answer on the main product webpage, I think they did a pretty good job. For sure, charges of misconduct are wholly misplaced.
Essentially the same information is available in the current, live versions of these webpages.
Using the Wayback Machine, I looked at the PureRaw webpage for November 27, 2022, https://web.archive.org/web/20221127050919/https://www.dxo.com/dxo-pureraw/. Near the top of the page it says: "Revolutionize your image quality without disrupting your existing Lightroom Classic or Photoshop workflow." And again: "Get more from your RAW files. Add DxO PureRAW to your existing workflow." And yet again: "Maximize the quality of your RAW files before editing them in Adobe Photoshop, Adobe Lightroom Classic, or other RAW editing software thanks to DxO's exclusive demosaicing, denoising, and lens correction technology."
Clicking two links took one to a General Product Information webpage, https://web.archive.org/web/20221208105114/https://support.dxo.com/hc/en-us/categories/360004540811, which included the following question and answer:
"Do I need DxO PureRAW if I already have DxO PhotoLab? What is the difference?"
"DxO PhotoLab 5 & 6 ELITE Edition users already have access to DeepPRIME, so purchasing the additional software is not necessary unless you wish to have the denoising capabilities available in its own software."
"For users of DxO PhotoLab ESSENTIAL Edition, DxO PureRAW will allow you to use the newest DxO Labs denoising algorithm, but it may be more beneficial to you to just upgrade in your customer account to DxO PhotoLab 6 ELITE Edition."
While it's true that DxO could have further reduced the likelihood of confusion by prospective purchasers unfamiliar with both Photolab and PureRaw by including the General Product Information answer on the main product webpage, I think they did a pretty good job. For sure, charges of misconduct are wholly misplaced.
Essentially the same information is available in the current, live versions of these webpages.
Yes, you're not the only PL user who wondered if they also needed PR. DxO should make clearer that PR is a lower priced subset of PL, aimed at people who don't have PL.You’re right, caveat emptor and all that, but I read the descriptions of the products and they appeared to be different. For me, anyway, the products have a learning curve and it took a while for me to realize my mistake.No offense but you shouldn't blame DXO for your mistake.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.
I’m happy with my purchase, but at least agree that I should let others know not to buy both products.
Another confusing thing is the role of NIK in the DxO product range. I already have FilmPack (which is built right into PL, unlike NIK, an acquired product). I don't think I'd get any worthwhile benefit from buying NIK, as there's so much overlap between the two, but DxO keeps promoting NIK while never explaining what it would add to my PL+FP+VP installation.
Last edited:
Earlier this thread I was asked what dxo did wrong.
I replied that what dxo did wrong was being discussed elswhere but no-one seems to want to discuss what i showed dxo did wrong in their own threads.
Last edited:
Digital Nigel
Forum Pro
Why on earth do you think others would start a thread to discuss something that didn't happen? This seems to be a personal obsession of yours, so why don't you start a thread to complain about the mysterious something that didn't happen?
As I said earlier, what dxo did wrong has been shown and discussed elsewhere.
If you disagree that is fine but the fact you continue trying to hijack this thread onto an unrelated topic instead of starting your own thread is suggesting to some people that you are not interested in what has been shown elswhere about what dxo did wrong.
If you disagree that is fine but the fact you continue trying to hijack this thread onto an unrelated topic instead of starting your own thread is suggesting to some people that you are not interested in what has been shown elswhere about what dxo did wrong.
Last edited:
Digital Nigel
Forum Pro
You keep referring to a mysterious 'elsewhere' where they discuss non-existent wrongs. Is this some religious institution?
I don't need to promote my website and a few others. If you are genuinely interested in discussing what I showed dxo did wrong then start your own thread.
Otherwise you can continue posting what you like here on dpr and likewise I will continue to post what I like elsewhere. That sounds fair to me.
Otherwise you can continue posting what you like here on dpr and likewise I will continue to post what I like elsewhere. That sounds fair to me.
Last edited:
Digital Nigel
Forum Pro
As previously stated, why would I start a pointless thread about nothing?
Ah, thanks, now I understand. You're just promoting your own web site. That makes sense.
You're choosing to not start your own thread and that's fine.
At this stage of my life I am comfortably retired and so have no need to promote my website. Consequently, I haven't promoted my website here at all.
Last edited:
tbcass
Forum Pro
How is starting another thread going to show what DXO did wrong. If he starts his own thread are you then going to post what they did wrong there? Why not just say it now?
tbcass
Forum Pro
Again nothing you are saying contradicts anything I said. My entire post was very noncommital.
tbcass
Forum Pro
We are going in circles so no further discussion would be useful.
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum