Why I'm sticking with DxO for RAW processing

[Jacques Cornell]

I use Lightroom Classic for DAM and round-trip to DxO PhotoLab for RAW processing hundreds or thousands of images at a time. Recently, I've wanted to shoot 26MP mRAW with my 61MP Sony cameras because 61MP is overkill for my event work and the files are huge. LRC can process mRAW but PL can't. So, I tried processing RAW with LRC. I hoped that Adobe's Denoise would be as quick on 26MP mRAWs as DxO's DeepPRIME 3 is on 61MP RAWs. And, I thought Adobe's new Adaptive Color might be a one-click replacement for the custom preset I use in PL.

Well, in my testing, LRC takes so much longer than PL that it's not even close to getting the job done in a timely manner. First, Adaptive Color took an hour to sync across 400 images. Then, Denoise took three hours to process. Each time, I had to wait before I could advance to the next step in my workflow. And, after that, it took 10 to 30 seconds to click from one image to the next for tweaking adjustments. Ugh. I could have gotten similar results from PhotoLab in less than half the time and without yelling at the screen.

It gets worse. I'm working through my archive replacing RAW files with much smaller lossy DNGs. I queued up 12,000 images in LRC and applied Adaptive Color. This took more than a day, during which time I couldn't do anything else in LRC. Then, I started Denoise, let it run for a while, and calculated it would take four days to finish. Are you kidding me? I cancelled the process and gave up. Applying my PhotoLab preset would take maybe a few minutes, during which time I could continue to work, and processing DeepPRIME 3 on export would take 16 hours.

This is not even close. LRC is simply not fit for high-volume work. Adobe's got some neat tech for diddling a single image, but PhotoLab remains the event shooter's friend.

And, those big 61MP RAW files won't be clogging up my drives after I convert them to 24MP lossy DNGs anyway.

--
Event professional for 20+ years, travel & landscape enthusiast for 30+, stills-only.
http://jacquescornell.photography
http://happening.photos

 

[StephaneB]

I use Lightroom Classic for DAM and round-trip to DxO PhotoLab for RAW processing hundreds or thousands of images at a time. Recently, I've wanted to shoot 26MP mRAW with my 61MP Sony cameras because 61MP is overkill for my event work and the files are huge. LRC can process mRAW but PL can't. So, I tried processing RAW with LRC. I hoped that Adobe's Denoise would be as quick on 26MP mRAWs as DxO's DeepPRIME 3 is on 61MP RAWs. And, I thought Adobe's new Adaptive Color might be a one-click replacement for the custom preset I use in PL.

Well, in my testing, LRC takes so much longer than PL that it's not even close to getting the job done in a timely manner. First, Adaptive Color took an hour to sync across 400 images. Then, Denoise took three hours to process. Each time, I had to wait before I could advance to the next step in my workflow. And, after that, it took 10 to 30 seconds to click from one image to the next for tweaking adjustments. Ugh. I could have gotten similar results from PhotoLab in less than half the time and without yelling at the screen.

It gets worse. I'm working through my archive replacing RAW files with much smaller lossy DNGs. I queued up 12,000 images in LRC and applied Adaptive Color. This took more than a day, during which time I couldn't do anything else in LRC. Then, I started Denoise, let it run for a while, and calculated it would take four days to finish. Are you kidding me? I cancelled the process and gave up. Applying my PhotoLab preset would take maybe a few minutes, during which time I could continue to work, and processing DeepPRIME 3 on export would take 16 hours.

12,000? No photographer has ever produced 12,000 usable, publishable or even interesting pictures. Maybe categorising your pictures and concentration your efforts on the best ones would be much more productive, regardless of the tool.

This is not even close. LRC is simply not fit for high-volume work.

That is a *very* uncommon opinion, to say the least.

Adobe's got some neat tech for diddling a single image, but PhotoLab remains the event shooter's friend.

That is another very uncommon opinion. Capture One is more commonly considered the champion for event shooters.

And, those big 61MP RAW files won't be clogging up my drives after I convert them to 24MP lossy DNGs anyway.

Maybe the problem is more with the number than with the format?

Now, if you do have 12,000 important pictures, surely the current price of storage cannot be a problem, can it?

 

[Jacques Cornell]

I use Lightroom Classic for DAM and round-trip to DxO PhotoLab for RAW processing hundreds or thousands of images at a time. Recently, I've wanted to shoot 26MP mRAW with my 61MP Sony cameras because 61MP is overkill for my event work and the files are huge. LRC can process mRAW but PL can't. So, I tried processing RAW with LRC. I hoped that Adobe's Denoise would be as quick on 26MP mRAWs as DxO's DeepPRIME 3 is on 61MP RAWs. And, I thought Adobe's new Adaptive Color might be a one-click replacement for the custom preset I use in PL.

Well, in my testing, LRC takes so much longer than PL that it's not even close to getting the job done in a timely manner. First, Adaptive Color took an hour to sync across 400 images. Then, Denoise took three hours to process. Each time, I had to wait before I could advance to the next step in my workflow. And, after that, it took 10 to 30 seconds to click from one image to the next for tweaking adjustments. Ugh. I could have gotten similar results from PhotoLab in less than half the time and without yelling at the screen.

It gets worse. I'm working through my archive replacing RAW files with much smaller lossy DNGs. I queued up 12,000 images in LRC and applied Adaptive Color. This took more than a day, during which time I couldn't do anything else in LRC. Then, I started Denoise, let it run for a while, and calculated it would take four days to finish. Are you kidding me? I cancelled the process and gave up. Applying my PhotoLab preset would take maybe a few minutes, during which time I could continue to work, and processing DeepPRIME 3 on export would take 16 hours.

12,000? No photographer has ever produced 12,000 usable, publishable or even interesting pictures.

You're being insulting, so I'm not going to go gentle on you.

You don't get around much or have any actual professional photographers in your life, do you?

I've been shooting events professionally for 20+ years, as you'd know if you bothered to read my signature line at the bottom of my post. A typical 4-hour fundraising gala yields 300-500 keepers, a wedding yields 800-1,200, and a 5-day conference yields 3000. There are 236,000 images in my archive that were delivered to clients.

Maybe categorising your pictures and concentration your efforts on the best ones would be much more productive, regardless of the tool.

Maybe you should get a clue before mouthing off about people you don't know.

This is not even close. LRC is simply not fit for high-volume work.

That is a *very* uncommon opinion, to say the least.

Like I care. "The Earth goes around the Sun" was a very uncommon opinion.

Adobe's got some neat tech for diddling a single image, but PhotoLab remains the event shooter's friend.

That is another very uncommon opinion.

Whoopdie freaking doo.

Capture One is more commonly considered the champion for event shooters.

No. I've been around long enough to know that Capture One's roots are in studio photography, for which it was uniquely suited.

And, those big 61MP RAW files won't be clogging up my drives after I convert them to 24MP lossy DNGs anyway.

Maybe the problem is more with the number than with the format?

Maybe the problem is that you don't know what you're talking about and yet you have an opinion?

Now, if you do have 12,000 important pictures

I do, and up yours for implying I don't.

, surely the current price of storage cannot be a problem, can it?

How would buying more storage make Lightroom faster?

Thanks for spouting your ill-informed opinion. Let me know when you actually have something to contribute.

--
Event professional for 20+ years, travel & landscape enthusiast for 30+, stills-only.
http://jacquescornell.photography
http://happening.photos

 

[BobKnDP]

Impressive. No bad language.

 

[Jacques Cornell]

Impressive. No bad language.

Might've stepped over the line with "up yours", but that was me being very, very restrained in a moment of max grumpitude. As I get older and civility gets stomped into the mud, I have more and more affection for that famous PG-rated line from "Gran Torino":

--
Event professional for 20+ years, travel & landscape enthusiast for 30+, stills-only.
http://jacquescornell.photography
http://happening.photos

 

[Jacques Cornell]

I use Lightroom Classic for DAM and round-trip to DxO PhotoLab for RAW processing hundreds or thousands of images at a time. Recently, I've wanted to shoot 26MP mRAW with my 61MP Sony cameras because 61MP is overkill for my event work and the files are huge. LRC can process mRAW but PL can't. So, I tried processing RAW with LRC. I hoped that Adobe's Denoise would be as quick on 26MP mRAWs as DxO's DeepPRIME 3 is on 61MP RAWs. And, I thought Adobe's new Adaptive Color might be a one-click replacement for the custom preset I use in PL.

Well, in my testing, LRC takes so much longer than PL that it's not even close to getting the job done in a timely manner. First, Adaptive Color took an hour to sync across 400 images. Then, Denoise took three hours to process. Each time, I had to wait before I could advance to the next step in my workflow. And, after that, it took 10 to 30 seconds to click from one image to the next for tweaking adjustments. Ugh. I could have gotten similar results from PhotoLab in less than half the time and without yelling at the screen.

It gets worse. I'm working through my archive replacing RAW files with much smaller lossy DNGs. I queued up 12,000 images in LRC and applied Adaptive Color. This took more than a day, during which time I couldn't do anything else in LRC. Then, I started Denoise, let it run for a while, and calculated it would take four days to finish. Are you kidding me? I cancelled the process and gave up. Applying my PhotoLab preset would take maybe a few minutes, during which time I could continue to work, and processing DeepPRIME 3 on export would take 16 hours.

12,000? No photographer has ever produced 12,000 usable, publishable or even interesting pictures.

You're being insulting, so I'm not going to go gentle on you.

You don't get around much or have any actual professional photographers in your life, do you?

I've been shooting events professionally for 20+ years, as you'd know if you bothered to read my signature line at the bottom of my post. A typical 4-hour fundraising gala yields 300-500 keepers, a wedding yields 800-1,200, and a 5-day conference yields 3000. There are 236,000 images in my archive that were delivered to clients.

Maybe categorising your pictures and concentration your efforts on the best ones would be much more productive, regardless of the tool.

Maybe you should get a clue before mouthing off about people you don't know.

This is not even close. LRC is simply not fit for high-volume work.

That is a *very* uncommon opinion, to say the least.

Like I care. "The Earth goes around the Sun" was a very uncommon opinion.

Adobe's got some neat tech for diddling a single image, but PhotoLab remains the event shooter's friend.

That is another very uncommon opinion.

Whoopdie freaking doo.

Capture One is more commonly considered the champion for event shooters.

No. I've been around long enough to know that Capture One's roots are in studio photography, for which it was uniquely suited.

And, those big 61MP RAW files won't be clogging up my drives after I convert them to 24MP lossy DNGs anyway.

Maybe the problem is more with the number than with the format?

Maybe the problem is that you don't know what you're talking about and yet you have an opinion?

Now, if you do have 12,000 important pictures

I do, and up yours for implying I don't.

, surely the current price of storage cannot be a problem, can it?

How would buying more storage make Lightroom faster?

Thanks for spouting your ill-informed opinion. Let me know when you actually have something to contribute.

Oh, and by the way, those 12,000 images I'm converting to lossy DNG for archiving were shot in 2023 for a single agency. So far this year, I've delivered over 40,000 images to paying event clients. And, I know folks with bigger archives who shoot more than I do.

So, take your sneering disbelief somewhere else, preferably to another website, one populated entirely with amateurs who think they know more than pros who do this for a living. You'll fit right in.

--
Event professional for 20+ years, travel & landscape enthusiast for 30+, stills-only.
http://jacquescornell.photography
http://happening.photos

 

[Jacques Cornell]

I use Lightroom Classic for DAM and round-trip to DxO PhotoLab for RAW processing hundreds or thousands of images at a time. Recently, I've wanted to shoot 26MP mRAW with my 61MP Sony cameras because 61MP is overkill for my event work and the files are huge. LRC can process mRAW but PL can't. So, I tried processing RAW with LRC. I hoped that Adobe's Denoise would be as quick on 26MP mRAWs as DxO's DeepPRIME 3 is on 61MP RAWs. And, I thought Adobe's new Adaptive Color might be a one-click replacement for the custom preset I use in PL.

Well, in my testing, LRC takes so much longer than PL that it's not even close to getting the job done in a timely manner. First, Adaptive Color took an hour to sync across 400 images. Then, Denoise took three hours to process. Each time, I had to wait before I could advance to the next step in my workflow. And, after that, it took 10 to 30 seconds to click from one image to the next for tweaking adjustments. Ugh. I could have gotten similar results from PhotoLab in less than half the time and without yelling at the screen.

It gets worse. I'm working through my archive replacing RAW files with much smaller lossy DNGs. I queued up 12,000 images in LRC and applied Adaptive Color. This took more than a day, during which time I couldn't do anything else in LRC. Then, I started Denoise, let it run for a while, and calculated it would take four days to finish. Are you kidding me? I cancelled the process and gave up. Applying my PhotoLab preset would take maybe a few minutes, during which time I could continue to work, and processing DeepPRIME 3 on export would take 16 hours.

This is not even close. LRC is simply not fit for high-volume work. Adobe's got some neat tech for diddling a single image, but PhotoLab remains the event shooter's friend.

And, those big 61MP RAW files won't be clogging up my drives after I convert them to 24MP lossy DNGs anyway.

Folks, I want you all to know that I posted this not to start an argument or do a he-man pose as "The PRO", but to share my experience so that those of you who face similar requirements and are wrestling with Lightroom on tight deadlines can at least be aware that there is an alternative. I'm happy to field questions and help any of you problem-solve.

But I won't take insults kindly.

 

[ishwanu]

... I'm working through my archive replacing RAW files with much smaller lossy DNGs. I queued up 12,000 images in LRC and applied Adaptive Color...

12,000? No photographer has ever produced 12,000 usable, publishable or even interesting pictures.

You could have thought that through a little better. Here's just one example to counter your claim:

An easy online search reveals that wedding photographers often provide hundreds of photos to their clients for each wedding. Use a ballpark number of 300, which is apparently conservative. A photographer who shoots just one such wedding per week will produce over 15,000 usable (sold for money) photos in a year.

Then think of all the photographers of various kinds, some of whom have careers spanning decades, and see how untenable your statement is.

 

[Jacques Cornell]

... I'm working through my archive replacing RAW files with much smaller lossy DNGs. I queued up 12,000 images in LRC and applied Adaptive Color...

12,000? No photographer has ever produced 12,000 usable, publishable or even interesting pictures.

You could have thought that through a little better. Here's just one example to counter your claim:

An easy online search reveals that wedding photographers often provide hundreds of photos to their clients for each wedding. Use a ballpark number of 300, which is apparently conservative. A photographer who shoots just one such wedding per week will produce over 15,000 usable (sold for money) photos in a year.

Then think of all the photographers of various kinds, some of whom have careers spanning decades, and see how untenable your statement is.

Another thing to think through: people don't like it when you call them a liar.

 

[ishwanu]

... I'm working through my archive replacing RAW files with much smaller lossy DNGs. I queued up 12,000 images in LRC and applied Adaptive Color...

12,000? No photographer has ever produced 12,000 usable, publishable or even interesting pictures.

You could have thought that through a little better. Here's just one example to counter your claim:

An easy online search reveals that wedding photographers often provide hundreds of photos to their clients for each wedding. Use a ballpark number of 300, which is apparently conservative. A photographer who shoots just one such wedding per week will produce over 15,000 usable (sold for money) photos in a year.

Then think of all the photographers of various kinds, some of whom have careers spanning decades, and see how untenable your statement is.

Another thing to think through: people don't like it when you call them a liar.

I don't know if you were called a liar or if the quality of your work (not "usable, publishable or even interesting") was maligned. Either way, a heated response was justified IMO.

On the other hand, it could be said that I called StephaneB a liar; but I'd say I merely offered a correction concerning a misstatement.

 

[Zeee]

I use Lightroom Classic for DAM and round-trip to DxO PhotoLab for RAW processing hundreds or thousands of images at a time. Recently, I've wanted to shoot 26MP mRAW with my 61MP Sony cameras because 61MP is overkill for my event work and the files are huge. LRC can process mRAW but PL can't. So, I tried processing RAW with LRC. I hoped that Adobe's Denoise would be as quick on 26MP mRAWs as DxO's DeepPRIME 3 is on 61MP RAWs. And, I thought Adobe's new Adaptive Color might be a one-click replacement for the custom preset I use in PL.

Well, in my testing, LRC takes so much longer than PL that it's not even close to getting the job done in a timely manner. First, Adaptive Color took an hour to sync across 400 images. Then, Denoise took three hours to process. Each time, I had to wait before I could advance to the next step in my workflow. And, after that, it took 10 to 30 seconds to click from one image to the next for tweaking adjustments. Ugh. I could have gotten similar results from PhotoLab in less than half the time and without yelling at the screen.

It gets worse. I'm working through my archive replacing RAW files with much smaller lossy DNGs. I queued up 12,000 images in LRC and applied Adaptive Color. This took more than a day, during which time I couldn't do anything else in LRC. Then, I started Denoise, let it run for a while, and calculated it would take four days to finish. Are you kidding me? I cancelled the process and gave up. Applying my PhotoLab preset would take maybe a few minutes, during which time I could continue to work, and processing DeepPRIME 3 on export would take 16 hours.

This is not even close. LRC is simply not fit for high-volume work. Adobe's got some neat tech for diddling a single image, but PhotoLab remains the event shooter's friend.

And, those big 61MP RAW files won't be clogging up my drives after I convert them to 24MP lossy DNGs anyway.

Folks, I want you all to know that I posted this not to start an argument or do a he-man pose as "The PRO", but to share my experience so that those of you who face similar requirements and are wrestling with Lightroom on tight deadlines can at least be aware that there is an alternative. I'm happy to field questions and help any of you problem-solve.

But I won't take insults kindly.

I know you have ignored me which I'm really happy about. When you get angry you insult people. I was on the end of that once and I didn't waste my time reporting it.

 

[Nabilon]

Applying my PhotoLab preset would take maybe a few minutes, during which time I could continue to work, and processing DeepPRIME 3 on export would take 16 hours.

This is not even close. LRC is simply not fit for high-volume work. Adobe's got some neat tech for diddling a single image, but PhotoLab remains the event shooter's friend.

And, those big 61MP RAW files won't be clogging up my drives after I convert them to 24MP lossy DNGs anyway.

 

[Jacques Cornell]

Applying my PhotoLab preset would take maybe a few minutes, during which time I could continue to work, and processing DeepPRIME 3 on export would take 16 hours.

This is not even close. LRC is simply not fit for high-volume work. Adobe's got some neat tech for diddling a single image, but PhotoLab remains the event shooter's friend.

And, those big 61MP RAW files won't be clogging up my drives after I convert them to 24MP lossy DNGs anyway.

Have you tested this or is this a hypothetic comparison?

Please read my original post again. I tested LRC's processing of Adaptive Color and Denoise on 400 and then 12,000 RAW files. I know from speed testing and more than a decade of experience how long PL would take on similar tasks.

As far as I know, Photolab is not even able to read mRaw files.

https://support.dxo.com/hc/en-us/ar...a-camera-s-standard-RAW-images-are-compatible

Correct. What I was comparing was how long it takes LRC to process 26MP mRAWs vs. PL processing 61MP RAWs. In my original post I explained that part of the reason I wanted to use LRC for RAW processing was that it could handle mRAW and PL couldn't. I wanted LRC to work for me, but it's slow and inefficient. I can get similar results from PL much faster by applying my own custom preset that leverages PL's own automated adjustments and by having noise reduction applied on export, at which point I've finished culling and adjusting - without any delays - and can step away for 30 minutes (for 400 images) before uploading the finished files to my client.

When working on 300-500 images from a 4-hour gala event, I might tolerate LRC's longer processing time if all the waiting happened at the end of the workflow, as with PL. But, having to cull - then wait an hour - then apply Denoise - then wait three hours - and then wait 10 to 30 seconds for each image to load as I tweak adjustments - that is simply intolerable.

If there's a quicker, more efficient workflow for high-volume high-ISO work in LRC, I'd love to hear about it. And, yes, I know I could forgo Adaptive Color and just use LRC's traditional auto adjustments to avoid that first lengthy interruption of my workflow, but 1) Denoise is still 5x slower, and 2) I get better, more consistent results from PL's auto adjustments than from LRC's.

--
Event professional for 20+ years, travel & landscape enthusiast for 30+, stills-only.
http://jacquescornell.photography
http://happening.photos

 

[jodaco]

Do you do any mobile processing? When I evaluate PL vs LrC it’s ultimately the integration with mobile that keeps me on Adobe. If you have any mobile in your workflow I’d be interested how you solve for that.

 

[tbcass]

I don't blame you for being upset. DPR is full of people who think they know what's best for other people they don't even know. For what it's worth it takes me only a few minutes to process 500 +/- 42mp RAW photos with DXO Photo Lab 8.5. I shoot Cross Country, Track and field and I easily shoot 400-600 photos per event.

--
Tom

 

[Zeee]

I don't blame you for being upset. DPR is full of people who think they know what's best for other people they don't even know. For what it's worth it takes me only a few minutes to process 500 +/- 42mp RAW photos with DXO Photo Lab 8.5. I shoot Cross Country, Track and field and I easily shoot 400-600 photos per event.

We also don't need constant reminders of how superior other software is. Interesting on how on the day of release LrC yet another how much more superior DXO is post. Even started a new one. What prompted that? We know. The OP has posted the same thing over and over here and the Mac forums.

This is this directed at you. It's funny how some claim to have pressure and time constaints (which I believe) have time to spend all day on forums.

--
Funny how millions of people on an internet platform where they can communicate instantaneously with people on the other side of the world using incredibly powerful handheld computers linked to orbiting the satellites hundreds of miles in space don’t believe in science. Neil deGrasse Tyson

 

[Zeee]

My summary. You get the tools you need to do the job. If I started a roofing company but only invested a small finishing hammer I wouldn't get too far.

If I needed Adobe for its DAM other attributes then I'd get a decked out multicore Mac Studio. A business write off. I watch a lot of videos and sometimes I've see Adobe Denoise AI do its thing in under 5 seconds. Other times they stop (edit) the video so we don't have to sit there for 30 seconds.

For whatever reason that wasn't my cup of tea I'd possibly get DXO and pay for a second app for the DAM. Or whatever else I needed. I've said since 2018. I trialed C1Pro three times. If I was a portrait photographer I'd likely have it and LrC (or not) and whatever else I needed in my toolbox.

So it's not like this can't be done. You can make Adobe Denoise AI fly if you need or want to. Am I disappointed NE has was disabled by Adobe. Absolutely. Do I care enough to drop Adobe. Not at all. I've gotten far too many other valuable tools since 2018. Things that 5 years ago took hours of frustration to correct can now be done in seconds.

DXO makes a great app. They put the time into the optics which includes deconvolution. My hat off to them for that. Adobe did not put that into lens corrections. You have multiple tools for that. Sure it takes a little a longer but I actually enjoy editing that part. I have a few presets. If I had deadlines, etc then I probably would not like it.

--
Funny how millions of people on an internet platform where they can communicate instantaneously with people on the other side of the world using incredibly powerful handheld computers linked to orbiting the satellites hundreds of miles in space don’t believe in science. Neil deGrasse Tyson

 

[Corialtus]

I don't blame you for being upset. DPR is full of people who think they know what's best for other people they don't even know. For what it's worth it takes me only a few minutes to process 500 +/- 42mp RAW photos with DXO Photo Lab 8.5. I shoot Cross Country, Track and field and I easily shoot 400-600 photos per event.

We also don't need constant reminders of how superior other software is. Interesting on how on the day of release LrC yet another how much more superior DXO is post. Even started a new one. What prompted that? We know. The OP has posted the same thing over and over here and the Mac forums.

This is this directed at you. It's funny how some claim to have pressure and time constaints (which I believe) have time to spend all day on forums.

I agree with you.

If someone prefers a different piece of SW it doesn't actually matter. However, some people behave as if it's a personal insult and pursue an evangelical crusade to prove to themselves , and others, that they, and only they, are right

If there were a "best" editing package then we'd all be using it. Self evidently we're not!

 

[Jacques Cornell]

Do you do any mobile processing? When I evaluate PL vs LrC it’s ultimately the integration with mobile that keeps me on Adobe. If you have any mobile in your workflow I’d be interested how you solve for that.

The extent of my "mobile" is downloading to my laptop and processing on-site for same-day delivery. So, the workflow is very similar. Here, DxO's leveraging of Apple's Neural Engine (ANE) is very helpful, as DeepPRIME 3 noise reduction runs as fast on my M4 MacBook Air as on my M1 Max Mac Studio with 32 GPU cores, which is to say 5x faster than Denoise on my Studio and probably 10x-20x faster than Denoise on my MBA.

I have, once or twice in studios, used Adobe Cloud (bundled with my LRC subscription) to send Smart Previews from my laptop to an iPad for on-site client review. Other than that, there are no "integration" effects keeping me with Lightroom - I use it for DAM, stitching, output sharpening and watermarking.

 

[Jacques Cornell]

I don't blame you for being upset. DPR is full of people who think they know what's best for other people they don't even know. For what it's worth it takes me only a few minutes to process 500 +/- 42mp RAW photos with DXO Photo Lab 8.5. I shoot Cross Country, Track and field and I easily shoot 400-600 photos per event.

We also don't need constant reminders of how superior other software is. Interesting on how on the day of release LrC yet another how much more superior DXO is post. Even started a new one. What prompted that? We know. The OP has posted the same thing over and over here and the Mac forums.

This is this directed at you. It's funny how some claim to have pressure and time constaints (which I believe) have time to spend all day on forums.

I agree with you.

If someone prefers a different piece of SW it doesn't actually matter. However, some people behave as if it's a personal insult and pursue an evangelical crusade to prove to themselves , and others, that they, and only they, are right

If there were a "best" editing package then we'd all be using it. Self evidently we're not!

Lots of folks are not familiar with PhotoLab. I know a bunch of professional event shooters who don't seem to know that anything other than LRC exists. As I've already said, my purpose was to share this information for others to evaluate in light of their own needs and preferred workflows. PhotoLab is very clearly best for me for very specific reasons. YMMV.