DXO PHOTOLAB 8 IS HERE! UPGRADE FOR THIS REASON

[@xoneeleven]

You just saved me $100 on upgrade fees. Thank you for your work.

[@takebetterphotos8132]

Glad I could help!

[@MedusaJellyFish300]

Thank you for taking the time to do this wonderful video on the new release of Photolab 8, I really enjoyed watching it and learned something new, muchas gracias ❤🎉❤

[@takebetterphotos8132]

Glad to hear it! Let me know if your getting it!😊

[@Yves-xe5jw]

Always good and clear explanations. Et voilà! (waiting all that in french now I did notice you can speak that language!)

[@takebetterphotos8132]

Thanks! 😃 How I wish I could speak french! I suppose you do? Voila is actually popularly used in American pop culture just like "Bon Voyage" and "Bon Apetit" 😃 No word in English to subtitude this apt word!

[@vincentmulder70]

Thank you. I bought DXO PL7 about 6 months ago. After this review I will wait till PL9 or for a very very good black friday deal to keep up with the latest and greatest.

[@takebetterphotos8132]

Ok thanks for the feedback!

[@michaelwplant]

Black Friday is always a good time to buy software and also upgrade software.

[@ro4lol]

Your channel is consistently good. I have learnt a lot of affinity and I also have dxo photolab 7. I won’t upgrade. I just bought it three months ago. Can’t justify it. For me DeepPrimeXD is awesome on my Canon 7D mark ii and I’m happy with my gear. Great video. Underrated channel

[@takebetterphotos8132]

Thanks for the positive feedback! 😃 Good move to stick with Photolab 7--you are not missing much. I had to zoom in super close to see any difference.

[@alanhuntley55]

I've been a user of DxO since the days you had to buy individual camera body modules and lens correction files. I regularly upgraded Optics Pro through the years and jumped to PhotoLab when it was released. I'm now on PL 7, but I don't think this upgrade has enough "meat." I'll wait and see what future versions bring to the table.

[@takebetterphotos8132]

Yes that was my thought too. I thought this release was a carbon copy of last year. Really unusual to have so little new features in Photolab. They have to reassure customers on the future road map.

[@ptvfr800]

Having trialled PL7 , decided that pure raw 4 coupled with LRC is a much better option! So I will stick with Lightroom for now. Thanks for the review..

[@takebetterphotos8132]

Good choice!

[@kemerthomson]

I have kind taken the same approach: either LR or PS in conjunction with PureRAW often results in my “best” results. The integration of both with the Nik Collection works better than from all current versions of PL. However, there are cases where PL can do much more precision edits, and PL8 is pushing me towards that approach more … even then, all my photos are managed by the LR catalog. I understand that there are plenty of users who either can’t afford all this software, or insist on a single software solution. As for AI: I think those wanting AI selection may not fully understand or appreciate the power of control point masking in both PL and Nik. In most cases I can get better blended and pleasing edits. Consequently, often my workflow is to use PureRAW from Lr, with some editing in Lr (including its masking, where appropriate), and then passing it on to Nik, and (of course) saving it in the Lr catalog. If you check the box in Nik for bigger TIFFs, you can go back and adjust, as long as you use only one plugin, like Color Efex or Silver Efex. That may seem like a lot of work, which sometimes can be consolidated in just PL, but I think my better images are worth it.

[@takebetterphotos8132]

Thanks for your feedback. I do agree that LR + PureRAW might give better results. I suppose most people using Photolab, as you say want, one software solution, or don't want to.learn three different apps, or are just don't want the subscription model. Lately I've been editing in just Photolab because it's so much simpler.

[@dillank3240]

I'm not sure if I will upgrade. I bought Photolab 7 only about a month ago, which is annoying! Thank you for the helpful video. Your DXO Photolab videos have all been very helpful!

[@takebetterphotos8132]

Glad it was helpful thanks for the feedback!

[@RWROW]

I'm an amateur micro four-thirds shooter and already have v6, plus a Lightroom subscription and Topaz Photo AI. Denoising high ISO photos is of real benefit. Still on the fence with my upgrade decision mainly due to the $105 price tag.Thanks for your excellent review, and for drawing attention to their quiet launch. That troubles me too as it seems as if they could be avoiding the obvious question from their customers: why no new masking.

[@takebetterphotos8132]

Yes $105 would be reasonable if they added more features than just 1/2 stop denoise improvement. Some competitors might have given this as a free update. Hope they give some reassurance on what the future of photolab holds. People want to build skill on software they know has a bright future and is constantly innovating.

[@nyobunknown6983]

I own PL7. In my opinion the improvements make upgrading from 7 to 8 a must have. I will upgrade but wait for the Black Friday sale. I never use XD because of the facial artifacts you mention. The improvements in that area alone are enough to make the upgrade worthwhile.

[@takebetterphotos8132]

Yes main reason to upgrade is the facial artifacts improvement in my view

[@nyobunknown6983]

@@takebetterphotos8132 I found myself using the Topaz Photo AI Facial AI to correct the issue.

[@takebetterphotos8132]

Now you can just use DXO! I've heard other users do this as well.

[@themullerfiles]

Nice comparison! I found in my review that the new noise reduction is quite strong, and I tend to revert back to the older version or reducing the strongness of the effect. In my opinion an upgrade from PL7 to 8 is not needed, but from an earlier version, yes.

[@takebetterphotos8132]

Thanks for sharing. If you work with high ISO, the noise reduction is definitely an improvement and the main reason to upgrade. Yes more value now coming from 6 and best of all you will still get the upgrade price.

[@hanahoeo7073]

Interesting new version. On fence for upgrade. Thanks for review

[@takebetterphotos8132]

Thanks for the feedback!

[@nickbianchi]

Your detailed comparison of the denoising results in PL7 and PL8 are clear: there are improvements… at extreme zooming in level! I downloaded the trial version and compared my 2021 PL5 (Deep Prime) to the new PL8, and while at 100%, there is a difference, it remains small. The other added functions since PL5 don’t justify an upgrade. But I have to admit: the loupe tool was necessary. Good they addressed this. I do have to contradict you, however, on the statement that the competitors haven’t caught up with XD. If in Lightroom, you use standard denoising, you remain behind DxO. But if you use Denoise AI without exaggeration, the end result is smoother but with enough sharpness than what you get with DxO.

[@takebetterphotos8132]

Thank you for the feedback. The last time I tested LR it did not retain as much details as DXO but perhaps they have improved.

[@brianmckeever5280]

Already upgraded, love the software.

[@takebetterphotos8132]

thanks for the feedback!

[@tonyb2760]

I have tested version 8 against 6, just like I did when 7 came out last year and again, I just don't see $109 dollars worth of upgrades, not even with 7 and 8 combined. Where is the vignette tool? I supposed this is something slipped into filmpack just like the luminosity masking feature. This "ring fencing" of features has really turned me against DXO. I don't see me upgrading again.

[@takebetterphotos8132]

Yes I think a lot of customers feel this way. I thought this release was a 7.1 level upgrade certainly not 8. They should have given away Luminosity Mask if their not adding anything important like AI masking.

[@ianyorke2617]

No, you certainly won't be upgrading from V6 to V9+ as DXO only allow upgrade from 2 versions.

[@takebetterphotos8132]

@ianyorke2617 That's an important consideration. I guess best to avail of their much cheaper upgrade price.

[@picklebird1261]

I'll probably wait until Black Friday to upgrade. I do like to use PL as my main RAW photo processor but have to keep LR/PS as B/U because of the things that PL doesn't cover ie panos, iPhone, HDR, occasional layer composting. Also I had to rely on LR as my RAW processor for almost a month after I bought the new Canon R5 MarkII because it took that long for PL to provide support for the files while Adobe supported them from the release of the camera.

[@takebetterphotos8132]

Thanks for the feedback. Good news for DXO that you use it even though you have already LR/PS which I thought overlaps DXO in functionality 😊

[@DB-wx1zs]

The only thing that would impress me and have me dropping every other program for Photolab is if photolab had a AI precision masking tool, the other apps have it, but photolab is still behind in this? Why? It’s frustrating to see them focus on every other feature expect for AI masking. What’s the point of all these features if I can’t easily make a targeted selection?

[@takebetterphotos8132]

I agree it quite worrying that they have not implemented AI masking until today when every other has. That why I thought they needed to do a Q&A to reassure customers.

[@DB-wx1zs]

@@takebetterphotos8132 Agreed, they need too do a Q&A.

[@sounderdavis5446]

And not wanting to answer the Capt. Obvious question: "Why aren't you developing masking?!?" is probably a key reason DxO didn't want to do a Q&A! (Excellent review, TBP.)

[@takebetterphotos8132]

Lol I though so to. In their last live presentation they were asked the same thing as well as why can't they process mobile RAW files. I guess their tired of answering (or not answering the same questions! 😃

[@sounderdavis5446]

@@takebetterphotos8132 Yeah, and imagine, you're a software developer who's gone to afterburners working to get the new version out, and nobody wants to talk about the new features it has. They want to talk about what features it doesn't have. It would be disheartening, and as a dev, you might say, "I don't need this!"

[@georgestiglich9754]

Love your contributions to photography! I have been a DXO user for many years and have been carefully comparing version 7 with 8. Disappointed DxO wanting to call PL8 anything more than a "dot" release of software . . . and trying to charge $109 US for the upgrade! I tried more than 25 images (made by 4 different cameras) in both versions, and it was exceedingly difficult to see differences in RAW processing results or ease of producing them! I will not upgrade until they add more value, or drop their price to maybe $39 (Sales event)?

[@takebetterphotos8132]

Thanks for the thumbs up! I agree...this felt more like 7.1 rather 8. You won't see any difference in denoising unless you work with really high iso images. Lens softness correction was also the same! I compared it with three different images. Couldn't believe they are marketing it as an upgrade! If you want to buy the best time is Black Friday but I don't think it will go down to 39!

[@torgnyhansson7409]

I’m upgrading from PL6. There are always vey incremental updates. I think this PL8 gives slightly more than the average upgrade. I will probably keep upgrading every other year since one then is able to upgrade and not buy it new as if you skip more than 1 version.

[@takebetterphotos8132]

Thanks for the feedback. I think there might be enough here coming from PL6 to upgrade to PL8. Not so much PL7. Good for DXO to give customers an upgrade price every two years.

[@yukonchris]

In the past, I tended to upgrade each year, but last year, I opted to skip 7. PL6 was already pretty awesome and checked most of the boxes I required. That said, this year I decided to go from 6 to 8. So far, I haven't been disappointed although I am still trying to determine if local adjustment points can be stretched like they can in Lightroom to work as ovals rather than just circles and whether those can be duplicated and inverted?

[@takebetterphotos8132]

I think good move ...there is a lot of value in 6 to 8. Based on my experience control points can't be stretched. They work differently than standard gradient masks in LR as they rely on a points characteristics to create the gradient.

[@yukonchris]

@@takebetterphotos8132 Yes, I understand. It is a sort of feathered affect based on the sample point. That said, I really like the way that circles can be stretched into ovals in Lightroom. My reasoning being that light almost always strikes objects at some sort of tangent instead of at 90 degrees. This tends to stretch it out. Light also will affect the tone of all hues in a given area. I think DxO should look at adding modifiers to its local selection points that allow the user to stretch circles into ovals, and also to turn on or off the selection bias in addition to the luminosity and hue sliders. In my opinion, it would massively enhance local adjustments. Finally, and this is a big one, DxO should work on incorporating more robust attribute centric automasks. Bringing in sky selection and subject selection options would be huge and take away any lingering reasons to opt for Lightroom over PhotoLab. Just my two-bits on the feature set. Otherwise, I'd say that PhotoLab is absolutely superb on the feature side of things.

[@takebetterphotos8132]

@yukonchris these are great suggestions! I've heard the change of control point to oval before too. Unfortunately DXO is pretty slow in upgrading these tools. They have been bombarded with AI masking requests for years and have yet to show any. To illustrate, their automasking brush with edge detection doesn't even show an accurate representation of the edges being detected. They really have to upgrade their AI skillset to move forward faster.

[@yukonchris]

@@takebetterphotos8132 Absolutely! Sky selection in Lightroom is an example of an especially useful functionality that can significantly speed up workflow. The same is true of intersecting masks. Basically, DxO's one true deficit is the lack of smart masks. If this functionality was added to PhotoLab, there would really be no truly compelling reason to continue using Lightroom.

[@ddsdss256]

I've had every DxO offering since PL4 except PureRaw (as that should be included in PL) and done every upgrade, but not until they went on sale (Black Friday's not that far away). They simply charge too much for what you get to their loyal customers, which compromises the value-for-money. The upgrades should be about 50% of what they are, not 50% of buying the program new (so ~25% of the new cost). This is especially the case as the upgrades are more evolutionary than revolutionary, and they still haven't fixed some very old issues* and have yet to integrate all of their products into PL (like Nik). At least they finally added lens profiles for the Laowa 6mm f/2. *Mostly minor, but there are cases where it's hard to get a precise mask with U Point, so some form of AI/"smart" masking would be most helpful.

[@takebetterphotos8132]

Yes hard to justify the cost this time around as the upgrades are so minor. I suppose they are targetting holders of old photolab. Definitely AI masking is a no-brainer. I'm sure their customers are constantly asking them when this is coming.

[@50procentnibanan]

It's amazing software, but unless you can do HDR, focus stacking or compositing panoramas on it, it's just not usable for me.

[@takebetterphotos8132]

Yes they need to put in more features!

[@Joh146]

For these things I have Affinity Photo.

[@takebetterphotos8132]

Yes Affinity is a good supplement. Some commenters have said they have both DXO and Lightroom and Photoshop. That might overkill but good for them to be able to afford it!

[@xodius80]

Photo lab should have all the features from filmpak, dxo collection, viewpoint etc into one package and it should be competitive, the feature fencing is just as bad a a subscription plan

[@takebetterphotos8132]

Agree. Trying to get you to buy everything!

[@pidzamek]

The software is great, but the lack of support for RAW files from new phones such as the S24 Ultra is a huge and disqualifying feature. In this age of evolving mobile photography, this is unacceptable.

[@takebetterphotos8132]

Agree. This has been requested for ages. Company reason is mobile RAW files do not have the same characteristics as standard cameras RAW. But they do say they are working on it. Who knows.

[@PierGiorgioZuccaro]

Honestly version 7 made the difference, 8 remains with an upgrade that is not entirely justifiable. If you have NIK 7, you already have the color selection masks, the Luma curve that has been in Capture One for years has been in NIK 7 for a year now. So why do they insist on keeping two separate programs? Make them pay for a complete one and go. As for the noise, I don't know why but Capture One does it very well. I like DXO for its simplicity but this expense is not justified for now. Then lastly, why NIK 7 has the language in Italian and DXO "doesn't" is all to understand!

[@takebetterphotos8132]

Perhaps two different teams are working on Nik and Photolab hence the inconsistency. I thought they would at least add in luminosity masking if they were not going to add AI masking. Instead we get hue mask which is of much more limited utility. Makes no sense. They need to do a Q&A to answer what's going on with Photolab.

[@PierGiorgioZuccaro]

@@takebetterphotos8132 Correct, today I have version 7 (with some annoying limitations) which could be a nice suite but is fine for quick developments on all the HDs I have without creating catalogs and more. But then you see all this and you see other SW like ON1 that I have always owned and for the new version it seems to include many new features! Even here I do not intend to upgrade because the basic AI for the sw does not fit into my concepts of development. I prefer that these algorithms work only on the masks to have maximum precision and today there is only one sw Capture One that satisfies me! (I do not use Adobe and I have Affinity for any additional work where I really hope they give a twist to this latest sw) See you soon and always a nice to see your videos.

[@takebetterphotos8132]

Thanks for the feedback! Yes masking should be a priority for all companies!

[@xFreyelis]

It's insane that it doesn't have Auto White Balance yet... And it's even more insane that with all the AI mumbo-jumbo nowadays, there's no photo editor yet that has implemented AI White Balance

[@takebetterphotos8132]

I think ON1's brilliance AI has some sort of Auto White Balance. It will correct casts if I'm not mistaken.

[@xFreyelis]

@@takebetterphotos8132 I own ON1.. And it's inferior to the others, sadly.

[@takebetterphotos8132]

Perhaps try Lightroom

[@fotojunkies]

Freak yeah it's worth it, are you kidding me here? lol

[@takebetterphotos8132]

I'm actually focusing on Photolab 7 users. Photolab 7 has the same features.

[@TormodMalmgren]

I have Photolab 7 but use mostly Capture one. I will not upgrade. For me Capture one is best.

[@takebetterphotos8132]

Thanks for the feedback. Why do you like Capture one?

[@TormodMalmgren]

@@takebetterphotos8132 Its because I like the way it it give my photos the best looks. I like the workflow, and that you can use session or catalog or both. The image quality is superb. I tried most of whats out there: Lighroom,Luminar,On1, Photolab, they all have alot of goods, but for me they never beat Capture one.

[@davidfukuda1492]

I have Photolab 7 and C1 myself. I was using C1 for 8/9 years and did every upgrade until they started pushing their subscription model. C1 is a good program and has better highlight recovery but now use Photolab which I think is as good as C1 especially once you get used to the program.

[@takebetterphotos8132]

@TormodMalmgren Capture One image quality is the best

[@takebetterphotos8132]

@davidfukuda1492 Yes you need to know how DXO's tools works or you will get cheezy results.

[@BrendaGarcia-i4z]

Moore Brian Jackson Scott Clark Barbara

[@pedropuckerstein4670]

I've been playing with the trial or some days. Not impressed. Doesn't support iphone very well, will not purchase.

[@takebetterphotos8132]

Yes strangely they did not address shortcomings. Very worrying.

[@pedropuckerstein4670]

@@takebetterphotos8132Actually, I think this app is much. ado about nothing. I tried a raw file from my cannon DSLR and didn't see enormous noise reduction. Probably need an experiment with high ISO. Given that masking is challenging, I just don't understand why these products are highly sought after. Maybe for super professional photographers, this is appropriate, not for me. I'll stick with Affinity Photo, Pixelmator, and Nik Collection 7 trial .... that's good enough for me.

[@pedropuckerstein4670]

@@takebetterphotos8132 I soften my opinion as I learned a bit more about the GUI, especially regarding preview. I do see value in the application, not enough to purchase though. I will continue to use the trial version, which may be possible forever ..... Fortunately it installed on Sequoia, some of their other apps will not install on Sequoia yet ..... buggy installation

[@takebetterphotos8132]

Yes you won't see any difference if you don't shoot low light or have a problem with super noisy images. I shoot with RX100m6 at night and those are extremely noisy. Not usable without Photolab or PureRAW.

[@takebetterphotos8132]

Glad DXO has attention to detail supporting the latest Macs. DXO is really best for extremely noisy images

[@michaelwplant]

Hi Please contact me directly as I would love to have a chat with you I work for DxO as the UK Product liaison.

[@takebetterphotos8132]

Thanks for reaching out. I will email you.

[@takebetterphotos8132]

@michaelwplant ok I've sent the email in michaelwayneplant.com

[@shiouming]

luminosity mask still excluded 🥲

[@takebetterphotos8132]

Yes what a disappointment. I guess this strategy is making them money!

[@shiouming]

@@takebetterphotos8132 a middle ground approach would be bundling this useful mask with all other packages (except Photolab). Out of so many packages there should be something relatively more valuable than the film pack, at least for those who're not interested in film.