Switching from Lightroom to another digital asset management and development tool can be daunting for photographers. There are very good reasons to, and DxO PhotoLab 8 is one of the most compelling options. Here’s why and how a Sony Ambassador made the switch.
In this comprehensive video, Mark Galer explains how to use this multi-award-winning software. DxO PhotoLab won the TIPA Best Software award for the last five years. It has enticed him away from Lightroom, a program he had been using since its launch.
Mark’s excellent video explains how to make a “pain-free transition” from Adobe’s product to DxO’s. He explains in depth that you don’t lose the Library function when you end your Adobe subscription, and he compares the pricing of both packages. He also touches on the features you can unlock within PhotoLab by adding DxO FilmPack and the benefits of including their Nik Collection in your editing workflow. In the video, he also touches upon DxO PureRaw and its benefits.
Going on to list the advantages and disadvantages of PhotoLab, he demonstrates the outstanding results achieved with DeepPRIME XD/XD2 for denoising and sharpening. Between that and the lens sharpness compensation from the Optics Modules, he shows that one can achieve scalpel-sharp images using older crop sensor cameras with older, poorer-quality lenses.
DxO PhotoLab 8 is also customizable, including the Workspace. Mark explains that fully a third of the way into the video.
Most photographers, of course, want to know how to develop their raw files, and he explains this in full, including how to create and customize calibrated color profiles. He then continues by explaining the rest of the image development process, pointing out the slightly different approach one needs—for example, setting the white point. Some of the terminology is different between Lightroom and PhotoLab 8, too. For example, clarity becomes microcontrast, and this video explains these differences.
He goes on to explain how to use other adjustments, such as the tone curve, the unsharp mask, and lens softness compensation, as well as applying local adjustments with an in-depth investigation of the use of control points. He also touches on creating black-and-white images in PhotoLab 8, something it excels at, and adding special effects available in the software.
This well-thought-out video finishes with how to export the photo.
The video demonstration uses a Mac, and there are some small differences when using PhotoLab 8 on a Windows PC; my recent review of the software was made using a PC.
If you are thinking of making the jump to DxO PhotoLab 8 or already have and want a better understanding of the program’s functions, then this video is a great place to start. I hope you find it useful. I did.
I've tested DXO with the free trial and it's nice, but I'm sticking with LRC. Good to have alternatives/competition, but I like what LRC offers and have been using it for more than a decade now.
Thanks Reginald. Yes, I started using LRC around the time of its launch, and I still have it because I often teach clients how to use it. The Library is second to none, but I think it has dropped back in the field when it comes to the outcomes of developing an image. I am not saying it's bad; it's better than most of the free alternatives. But it has dropped behind the really good development tools such as PL8.
Hmm, I don't know about that, but everyone is different. I was thinking quite the opposite; LRC has made tons of improvements and add lots of great new features. Maybe I just didn't give DXO a full effort b/c I'm sooo used to LRC. But I wish they had a feature like Capture One where it could mimic the LR workspace. When I started using Capture One (along with LR), they had a feature where I could set it up like LR to make the transition easier. But as previously mentioned, it's always good to have alternatives and competition.
One thing about DX0 software that I've experienced is that if you let your version get too old, there is no upgrade pricing. For example trying to go from NIK4 to NIK7, you pay the full price.
Yep, that did annoy me as hell. My Canon R8 was not supported in my version 4, and I upgraded already once in the past. Version 5 supports R8 but cannot upgrade to older version. So just finally bit the bullet and bought the 8 few days ago, hope it will serve me for at least 3-4 years without a need to upgrade again. If the 4th version supported my R8 I would see little need to upgrade at all at full price.
That's pretty standard for a lot of software (not just photographic). I don't object so much if you get are significant improvements on older versions, which you do. The businesses that produce the software are investing time and expertise into creating something that I could not make, so I can't object.
I was happy with version 4 and deep prime noise reduction in it. If I could pay upgrade price to version 5 I would but instead full price to version 8. If the version 4 supported R8 I would have no need to upgrade. I used the version 4 with R5 recently and did not feel it was lacking against 8, for what I use it for. So to me, model where they allow upgrade price to older versions would have been welcomed.
I wonder if converting the RAW files from your new camera to DNG format might be a solution. If your older version of the software supports DNG format, you can continue using it without having to spend money on an upgrade. The drawback is that it does add an extra step to your workflow.
It does not appear it will work. I download version 4 and converted a Sony a1 II raw to dng using the latest Adobe DNG Converter 17.2 and PL 4 can't process the file.
Just a side note, this trick does work with other apps like Capture One and probably many others.
The day when software companies no longer need to issue any upgrades is the day when they go out of business. Without upgrades they have nothing new to sell us and we have no further need to buy from them. Unfortunately this means that we will always have to keep on paying for upgrades, regardless of whether we actually need them. Same goes for cameras, computers etc. Ten years ago people were making perfectly good photos with the cameras and software available at the time. Even today you could still produce excellent results with ten year old equipment. Do we really need the latest features that Lightroom or Photolab are offering? We managed perfectly fine without them before.
I get your point, Andrew. Phone sales are already being hit because they now have all the functions people need. I have long argued that most photographers can happily shoot with 20MP cameras as it delivers more than is required. 20 MP was not so long ago considered the gold standard, and a decade before, people thought the same about 10 MP. For me, all extra pixels mean are bigger file sizes.
Furthermore, contemporary sensors on all cameras have a wide enough dynamic range to suit most needs.
As for software, if people buy new cameras, they can probably expect to need new software to support it. The companies that make the software, as you say, need to make money to exist. Without them, new camera's raw files will stop being supported. So, it's either pay a subscription or upgrade. Also, I guess that if someone is paying $9000+ for a Sony A1 ii, they can afford a tiny fraction of that on new software, can't they?
True, but we also managed perfectly fine without all the iPhone, automobile, computer OS, 10 MP cameras, streaming services, multiple TV channels and many other forms of new technology, but we still appreciate the updates and upgrades.
Yes, you are right, as long as the upgrades are worthwhile. If they are, I think upgrades are worth taking. I am in the lucky position of making a reasonable living from photography, and I upgrade every time. But when I had a young family and far larger household expenses than I do now, I would only upgrade Lightroom and Photoshop around once every three years. That was true for most software. I still pay the Adobe subscription, and what I get extra each year is negligible or irrelevant. Similarly, Microsoft Office offers very little new each year, if anything. Thanks for the conversation.
I've used PL since v2. In 8 I'm pleased to be able to get acceptable images when shooting at ISO 50k on my Z8. Masking and local adjustments have got way better. But for a wildlife shooter producing say 3000 images in a couple of hours, the culling and rename functions are a constant frustration. 3 keystrokes to delete a file. A rename function that is worse than Win Explorer's. An export function that doesn't allow you to rename the file, only to add a suffix.
To me, what DXO needs to add is AI subject detection for easier masking. Once that is added it is total lightroom killer. Perhaps more advanced portrait tools too, like eyes and lips detection.