Is PhotoLab 8 REALLY Better Than Everything Else?

[@AnthonyMorganti]

In this video, I give an overview of PhotoLab 8 and demo of some of the new features in this iteration of the application. For more information about PhotoLab 8 and to download a fully working free trial, go here: tidd.ly/3BHUqOk To look at a comparison of the different versions of PhotoLab, go here: tidd.ly/3Y6zJ6a I have FREE Keyboard Shortcut Cheatsheets and Mini-Courses available for several different applications. Check them out: www.AnthonyMorganti.com I am a DxO affiliate and will earn a commission if you purchase anything using the links directly above. Please read my Code of Ethics Statement: onlinephotographytraining.com/code-of-ethics/

[@RYwoodview]

Good demonstration of some of the tools, but a title like "Is ******* REALLY Better Than Everything Else?" really demands some opinion about how it compares overall to other software.

[@PierreBurnaugh]

I agree, was anticipating RAW processing and image quality. But very nice video on the features.

[@ScruffyMisguidedAndBlue]

Exactly, yet another half arsed clickbait video.

[@SL-yd7qi]

I got PL7 during the 25 year sale. I chose it because wanted the deepprime Denoise for my m4/3 camera (that btw, I use with great love and joy) I tested PL8.1 demo using the denoise when the black Friday sale was on. I immediately was excited about the improvements in Denoise quality. Especially human skin was quite perfect for my needs. That was a huge disadvantage on PL7 as it required me tuning the image to limit ugly exaggeration of human skin features. PL8 still makes trouble for a certain person with dark skin, but it is much better. I was afraid of ISO 12800 on my camera, but PL8 is taking away my worries. PL8 is the only Windows program as a Linux-first user that I return to frequently. I thought about only getting the PureRaw package and use a open source RAW developer like darktable, but the demo of PL7 was quite exciting. I am very much of a photo edit noob! I liked the PL way of editing colours on photos, and I decided to go that way.

[@TacereMors]

100% agree - Denoise in PL8 is absolutely nuts! Huge leap over PL7 in my view.

[@gerrystone5468]

I too vote for a tutorial on Photolab 8 masking.

[@biancadupont2931]

Thank you. How would this compare to LRC and PS? Not in the mood to learn something new unless it's a game changer.

[@jpdj2715]

Between LrC and Ps, the actual raw processing (conversion) is done by Adobe Camera Raw (the Develop tab in LrC). This is the most vital component to begin with. PhotoLab (PL) does the raw processing and a bit more. While ACR is not the best, up to at least A3 print size, it’s fine. How good you will find ACR depends on your camera. Some cameras have no OLPF (AKA AA filter) and these may have more noise (but have sharper images). PL is very good here with its DeepPRIME denoise function that is years old now, while ACR got an additional noise option in 2023. If you need Ps no matter what, stick to Adobe. If you are in a phase of replacement of your camera kit - bodies and lenses - then Adobe is superior. Today, there are some 1,248 camera profiles with ACR/LrC. These come relatively fast after a camera release and some are firmware version specific. You can also turn my reasoning around: if you will not replace your kit and have no need for Ps, then PL may be a choice that costs less. DxO and Capture One (C1) have a trial option where you can download their app and try it for a month, for free. I tried them several times and stuck with ACR/LrC/Ps, but had added Topaz apps for DeNoise (before DxO had DeepPRIME) and Gigapixel for upsampling to a size of max 32,000 on the long side. And I went through a system replacement in the past years. When I looked into PL and C1, I found that DxO had better Ts & Cs and C1 would become expensive quickly as I went through camera body upgrades in the new system 3 times. To see if PL has what you need, you really need to download-install the trial version - registration is only a matter of giving your e-mail account to them.

[@FJWoods007]

It's easy to write off PL's masking tools as retrograde. Well, those control points and control lines are actually quite powerful. Whether they're "easier" than AI masking is doubtful, but I do find that they often yield a more natural looking result. I would definitely spend a moment working with (at least) those two masking tools.

[@MrMartin246]

For learning and testing control points and lines, I agree with you. They are powerfull. And they provide masking with soft transitions so the applied adjustment do not create un-natural transitions in the image, something AI masking often does. So these masking tools are very powerful on their own right. On the lack of add/substract/interserc this is also there to some extent - with control points you can create add or subtract elements. There is the brush and erase masks to add and subtract as well, although they do no work will all other mask types for some obscure reason, All in all the masking capabilities are nothing to be dismissive about.

[@Bassbarbie]

I agree. They are incredibly powerful and do yield natural results.

[@picklebird1261]

Good review with a few tips that I hadn't seen anywhere else! I have PL 8 in addition to LR Classic/PS. I do about 90+% of my post processing in PL because I find it fast and the masking is generally effective with the options that are available (bird and wildlife photography generally). I like the luminance masking in PL much better than LR. That said, I just don't feel comfortable giving up my LR/PS subscription just yet. I use LR for situations that can't be handled in PL ie when I bought a new camera ( Canon R5 Mark II) it took PL almost a month to support the camera and I was on foreign photography trip where I had to download my files during this time and had to use Lr as my fallback. I also continue to print using the LR print module--just haven't given PL a try on this. Catherine

[@dinwa276]

Your overview was very useful. I tried the trial a month ago and found it confusing to use; especially not having a status bar for the denoise tool. You cleared up several questions I had as well as a lot I was not aware of. In Photolab 8, if your computer isn't good enough to run deep prime xd2, no error message shows up (for me at least); nothing happens. When I tried DXO pure raw 4, it did show an error message. The software functionally, I feel is very good. However, as far as error handling, it's not as mature in telling me what the problem is. In checking their website minimum pc specs: my pc is I7-7th gen and 32g ram but my GPU, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050, is not up to task.

[@MortAllachie]

I use DXO Pure Raw. I bought PhotoLab 6, but I prefer Lightroom Classic and Lightroom on iPad, so Pure Raw is genius. So if PhotoLab is the best out there? Probably for some. At least with DXO you get what you pay for with decent upgrade prices unlike what Skylum (Skumlum) are doing with Luminar.

[@sounderdavis5446]

You may mean what Skylum *used* to do. As of January 2024, Skylum no longer charges subscribers extra for Luminar Neo extensions, and subscribing to Neo is relatively cheap now. DxO OTOH charges PhotoLab users extra for FilmPack and ViewPoint to get luminosity masking and perspective correction, and all three make for a pricey combo. I also have PL6 Elite but rather than upgrading to PL8, I'm switching over to Pure Raw when it's on sale, because it does what I use PL6 for with Lightroom and PS where I can do luminosity masking and perspective correction.

[@MortAllachie]

@@sounderdavis5446 Been happy with Pure RAW, LR and PS for years now. The difference between DXO and Skylym is that DXO never tried to trick their customers. If Skylym have changed their ways, good for them. It's easy to lose a customer... Way harder to get one back... I'm done with Skylum.

[@uhligsu]

DXO ist vileicht wirkkich der beste Raw Entwickler, wenn es um die Essentials geht: Korrektur der Kombiation von Kamera mit Obkektiv, Rauschunterdrückung, Demosaicing, dazu der beste Dehazer (Clearview) und eine einzigartige Vezerrungskorrektur nachdem die Perspektive korrigiert wurde sowie ein herausragendes Farbmanagement.

[@jimsignorelli9317]

Thanks Anthony for your honest plus/minus review, -and despite your DXO status.! Good stuff. BTW, I'm a teacher who shows tudents how to use various software programs. Can you let me know what program you use to emphasize or enlarge material as you're talking about it. You work with it extremely well!

[@TroupeGoal]

Good video - I tried the software but decided not to go with it, despite some pleasing results at times. I find the lack of AI masking a problem as it means more work, plus I found the masks it has hard to understand (I'm not a pro by any means!). The biggest benefit of it is the noise reduction and lens corrections, but you can get the benefit of these by buying ProRAW at half the cost. Also, as your video shows, a number of features are actually only available if you spend more money on a Film Pack. I wasn't really sure what this was, but it seemed to me that they were trying to keep a few features back to get another purchase out of me.

[@keithj30]

It would be great if you could give a bit of training in masking in pl8, I like your style of teaching it is informative

[@mdturnerinoz]

I have had DXO PL since V1; it's good, but I generally only use it when a tool they have is easier to use than anyone else's toolset (or better results for me). Yes, I am a (software) gear nerd. Yes, please, on the masking in PL (8).

[@Twobarpsi]

Excellent video!

[@Jepe1964]

Nice overview, but what about the possibilties for batch processing in dxo 8 ? I do a lot off sport photography and for my PP I make use of the combo: capture one and topaz photo AI (only becoise the noise reduction in C1 is bad). I prefere to stay in 1 tool for the complete flow.

[@eddyjcreative100]

OMg finlly found Anthony again

[@jstein6870]

I've been looking to leave the subscription model of Lr/Ps. I almost never use Ps, and I've been using Silver Efex and Color Efex extensively enough to know how PL feels. The tone curve in PL8 is good now. What's missing are custom print templates, as far as I can tell after using the trial for a couple of weeks. Am I missing something? It seems limited to rows and columns of identically sized images.

[@lakesidepaul3950]

Thank you for the time you put into this as I am looking for an alternative to Adobe. I would love to see a vid on the masking features as well as your overall opinion of PhotoLab 8.

[@MrMartin246]

Thanks for the video. But you ask a question in the title of the video, and you don't answer it nor provide your opinion ?????

[@krimke881]

This is the best first-look-demo I've ever seen of this. Is this the closes we'll come to LRC nowadays? I can't deal with Photoshop, but I wanna switch to a different LRC and I can't see anyone having clear information on where changes to the photos are saved, on any alternative software, and I cannot see anyone else than LRC having a thing like the local adjustment tools in layers.

[@alangauld6079]

One thing to consider when comparing to Adobe is that PL has absolutely no tools for merging - no panos or HDR or focus stacking. You can use a layered editor like Affinity Photo to do those things but PL itself is purely for single image edits. (Nik collection has HDR merge but that's an extra purchase and still no pano or focus stack)

[@ytuberization]

The description of the lens sharpness correction update is not true: The individual lens characteristics were always considered by the PL sharpening algorithm .

[@MrMartin246]

In PL the is a Lens Softness tab, and there is also a global sharpening tool. So both tools exist. It is not one or the other.

[@aklaasvandalen207]

As a Fuji user I am waiting for what is promised!

[@natureinfocusimages]

How do you turn off those call out help Windows.

[@ORLANDORIVERA-d7w]

Would love a video on masking for sure…

[@DavidSwarthout]

Thanks Anthony, I'm a little unusual because I use LRC only for keyword searching. I do all image editing and processing in ACR and Photoshop and apply keywords and geocoding using Bridge. I would buy PL(8) only if it had keyword management that was superior to what LRC offers. It would be helpful (for me at least) to understand how keyword management works in PL(8) and how it compares to that of LRC.

[@MrMartin246]

Download a demo or read the online manual and you will find out.

[@alangauld6079]

You can still use Bridge with PL. Bridge is free so no subscription payments needed. Just change the file associations so that it opens raws in PL instead of LR or ACR. I use Affinity instead of PS and PL instead of ACR/LR. After changing the associations I just click a file in Bridge and the right app opens.

[@DavidSwarthout]

@@alangauld6079 Thanks, I'm quite aware of that. It's just that Bridge does not create a database of keywords as LRC does so each time you search for a keyword it looks at every image file in your collection, a so called brute force search. This takes a loooong time if you have 90 GB of photos whereas LRC can provide a result instantly. I'm also curious about combining keywords and/or attributes in PL(8) for searching my collection. The Bridge search function is flexible, powerful and much better than LRC's, which IMO is cumbersome to say the least.

[@alangauld6079]

@@DavidSwarthout Ah OK, I didn't know about LR indexing keywords. I use Bridge as a DAM but don't generally use keywording. PL doesn't have any keywords as far as I know.

[@DavidSwarthout]

@@alangauld6079 I love using Bridge as a DAM and if Adobe ever modified it to use an indexed search I would uninstall LRC instantly. After all, ACR has the same functionality as far as masks and adjustments as LRC and I do all my color editing in Photoshop. I carefully keyword all my photos and use LRC only for its speed in keyword searching.

[@ericvaughan11]

If you never use DXO software for editing, then no you shouldn’t buy it. Use the free trial version and see for yourself. If you don’t think it’s better then don’t buy it. I love their pure raw 4

[@LawrenceMichael-it3hp]

Good morning Anthony, my camera is a 5D mk4 with canon lens. I downloaded the free trial, installed and navigated to my photo files. Dxo will not open any photo stating "sRAW/mRAW" are not supported. I assume that this is saying that no Canon Cr2 files will not work with DxO PhotoLab 8 elite. Very disappointing that this program is useless for Cr2 files. Q, is there a work around for this?

[@HowIsThat69]

Yes there is a solution. Shoot uncompressed.

[@Twobarpsi]

I downloaded PL8. I have a 5D MKII and I shoot full CR2. It had no problem editing my files. One work around I see is use Canon DPP4 and convert your s and mraw into TIFF. Then open in PL8.

[@tonyprice7890]

So what was the conclusion?

[@DA-lp4rh]

thanks for the insight - do you have any idea if you can draw straight line in a mask, like in PS - where you hold shift and click between two points with a brush tool to get a bone straight line?

[@maitland1007]

"Beware of all the reviews by people associated with dxo"... and here's mine.. . I did appreciate learning more about it, but still looking for a non-biased comparison between LRC and this. Does photolab store edit info in sidecars? or does it actually change the originals? or?

[@FJWoods007]

Side cars.

[@MrMartin246]

Totally non-destructive. Even the denoise is non-destructive, that is why they have the loop tool and not the entire image is previewed for the advanced denoise. It is applied at export. While you edit it only add a small sidecar file, regardless of the edits you do. Many other software will created a new pixel layer for the advanced tools and the sidecar becomes much bigger than the original RAW. Not here.

[@wielpaquay1932]

No ai masking is a dealbreaker for me. I think it’s also more expensive than LR &PS. Not if you use it for 2 or 3 years but I like to update every year to have the newest software.

[@MrMartin246]

Try the control points and control lines for yourself and play with their Luma and Chroma sliders.. It is no AI selection but I find you can make really good selections very quickly and you do not get the hard hedges that AI masking often produce.

[@alangauld6079]

I used to work in corporate IT where the mindset is never upgrade to anything until it's been out for a year. Let other people be the guinea pigs! I upgrade every second version unless I really, really need a feature, but even then I always wait at least 4-6 months (usually on a Black Friday type sale!) so any urgent patches can be sorted out. They don't call it the "bleeding edge" for nothing.

[@dsimon9s29]

Thanks for posting. Sure would be nice to have an alternative to LRC. Not sure if this is it, though.

[@kingkevinhector]

It's a good review, but I think you need to do a side-by-side comparison of all LRC alternatives. I have a LR/PS subscription, but I'm about to cancel it. I've chosen Affinity Photo as my layer-based replacement for PS, and now I'm looking at something to replace LR. I think PL might be it, but I'm not sure.

[@freetibet1000]

I suggest that you should also take a look at Capture One before you decide which one suit your needs best. Non of these professional tools are cheap but you may find them worth the extra money anyway?

[@klarion]

Don't forget those who get a free copy of software, which is quid pro quo

[@tonyb2760]

I have been a customer of DXO since the first release of Optics Pro and have upgraded on every release up to Photolab 6 and every release of the Nik collection. I stopped the Photolab upgrades at version 6 because I feel the updates have become very incremental and are merely nothing but a money grab and along with the "ring fencing" of features in add on programs is really disappointing. The masking is way behind most other software available as well as simple features and some feature locked to raw only is frustrating. I don't ever see myself making another purchase from DXO. That's too bad

[@alangauld6079]

I also have been there since OpticsPro but I only upgrade every 2nd release, that way they are usually worthwhile. I do prefer the DxO U-Point masking tools to most AI approaches I've used - the effects are usually more natural looking IMO. I'm currently waiting for Black Friday since their discounts then are usually better than the launch prices.

[@liverpoolpictorial]

Photoshop remains the best. Yes, they've added AI stuff which is not to some tastes, but they haven't removed anything. This recent spate of KZbin videos knocking Photoshop feels like a fad to me.

[@Twobarpsi]

The subscription model is terrible.

[@bamsemh1]

Best? Well, show us the mobile/tablet app. Oh, right.

[@nickscott8488]

ON1 is better in my opinion.

[@Frontdesk99]

Nope. Not impressed at all. Won't show me which files are edited (in the film strip) Won't show denoise effect and other adjustments, only when I use a dumb "loupe" New denoise not working on Fuji RAW (I mean... SERIOUSLY DxO???) I tried the trial version and I am not at all impressed with the denoise. LR Classic does it a LOT better No AI masking. No generative fills Way too expensive and you won't even get free updates.

[@Vincentecreativeservices]

NOPE. It's annoying to use, the UI is scrunched together and the sliders are hella finicky in a non-linear response sort of way. Tony Northrup LIED. I got the free trial and it sucks.

[@mickcooper8739]

What he doesn't tell you is that you have to pay even more money to use the Luma control. Only available if you have Filmpack 7 or higher...which costs over $100 dollars extra!

[@hywel3143]

The Luma curve control is one of the key new features included in PL8. You are confusing the Luma curve feature with the luminosity mask feature. Anthony clearly states 23 minutes into the video that the luminosity mask is not part of PL8, but is only available if you also purchase FP7. FP7 costs an extra £129, in addition to £209 for PL8.

[@alangauld6079]

Do you know you can use control lines to create a pretty reasonable luminosity mask workaround? Just mask the whole image then use the dropper to select your required tone and refine it with the luminance control (and push the chroma tool all the way to the left). Luminosity masking in PL (and in Nik) was a slightly weird addition IMHO. The only serious snag is the eraser doesn't work with Control Lines so you can't remove parts of the mask but I find it is close enough for 90% of my use cases. (The same is true of chroma masking too, of course, just select a colour and push luminosity to the left) But I do agree that if they can put the new chroma msk in PL Elite they should put the Luminosity mask there too.

[@andrewlovell3351]

PL8 is nowhere near LR/PS in overall capability. AI masking, Generative fill, AI Declutter, on and on. The Selective Tone in PL8 is still a bad joke. The latest Lightroom 14.0 noise reduction is every bit as good as Deep Prime/PL8.