Has DxO PhotoLab 6 become a real alternative?

[Bob Rockefeller]

I currently use Capture One as my primary RAW converter, image editor, and asset manager. But DxO PhotoLab 6 has a lot going for it I'm seeing as I run the trial version.

Maintaining a RAW workflow and having access to DxO's excellent DeepPRIME technology is great. I don't find its DAM capabilities quite up to Capture One's, but they might be workable.

Is there a sense that PhotoLab has become a viable alternative to Lightroom and Capture One?

[Rhossydd]

Is there a sense that PhotoLab has become a viable alternative to Lightroom and Capture One?

Each have their strengths;
DXO great for noise reduction and lens correction for some lenses.
CO good for tethering supported cameras and some detailed colour correction options.
LR best for everything else.

For me, I now do most things in LR, run some cameras and ISOs through DXO and very rarely bother with CO.

Quite happy to have paid for DXO PL5 Elite and subscribe to LR. I haven't bothered to upgrade CO since v20 and may not even re-install it when I next build a new system or do a re-install.

[Bob Rockefeller]

Each have their strengths;
DXO great for noise reduction and lens correction for some lenses.
CO good for tethering supported cameras and some detailed colour correction options.
LR best for everything else.

For me, I now do most things in LR, run some cameras and ISOs through DXO and very rarely bother with CO.

Quite happy to have paid for DXO PL5 Elite and subscribe to LR. I haven't bothered to upgrade CO since v20 and may not even re-install it when I next build a new system or do a re-install.

For your uses, DxO PhotoLab is a utility to Lightroom and not a solution of it's own.

Capture One is my hub and does an excellent Fujifilm RAW conversion. Maybe Topaz Photo AI is what I need as a utility to Capture One.

[RT]

Bob,

I'm a convert from DxO Elite 5 + updates to Capture One.  I switched over a few years ago  (Version 20 I think, now on V22) when I found myself frustrated with DxO.  I recently went back into DX0 to hunt up the changes I'd made to a particular file to compare to a reworking of that file in Capture One. Now maybe DxO 6 is greatly improved, but for me with this particular file, the C1 version was vastly superior.  Plus, again for me, using C1 was just so much easier. Also, now that I'm using Fuji equipment only (used to use a combo of Fuji, Olympus and Leica), I find C1 works better than DxO for Fuji files. But again, that's just me and my subjective judgement.

OTOH, I do like DxO's file system much better. I've never quite been comfortable with the whole catalogue/Session thing.  I do wish there was the DxO (and others) style of DAM as aC1 option.

Rene

[nemophoto]

I have used DxO for a number of years. I generally like its capabilities and definitely prefer its color over C1. The biggest plus is it uses the DCP camera profile if you do custom profiles yourself. (I do and really recommend it.) C1 uses ICC profiles which, theoretically you can create yourself, but I have never created a good custom camera profile for C1. Never. The other big advantage is you don't need to create a catalog or session as you do in C1. You can just process whatever files you want. Personally, I use Lightroom mostly. I'll create a database of selects from shoots in Lightroom, but will often export to DxO because of better sharpening and lens correction and especially denoise. I hate that to use the new Denoise in LR, you must export it as a DNG.

[Isleofgough]

DXO is a terrible company and not suitable replacement for Capture one pro. I purchased DXO photolab, silver fx, and viewport from them and they lost my purchase information so I cannot upgrade. I sent them proof of purchase and they still said they cannot fix it. Apart from that, you really have to purchase several items from them to get the features of C1P and the quality is subpar. The only thing they do well is noise reduction. For that, they are great.

[Rhossydd]

DXO is a terrible company and not suitable replacement for Capture one pro.

It seems you're basing that assessment on your one experience, whilst DXO might have made an effort to help, it was ultimately your fault for loosing your own details.

Read back through this sub-forum and you'll find plenty of examples of Phase failing to support their customers well, or at all in some cases.

I've owned both CO & DXO. Whilst I've never needed support from either, I'm more impressed with DXO. Their lens correction is best in class and to their credit they continue to update this feature on older versions free of charge, plus they set the benchmark for great noise removal with Prime before anyone else. Phase on the other hand don't continue to support older versions, haven't had any new and compelling features for years, worst of all their messing around with upgrade/subscription options have made continuing to buy new software from them untenable.

[Isleofgough]

I have all my old serial numbers and proof of purchases, so the support fault is with DXO, not me. It is true that C1P has had slow development and only recently supported newer Leica lenses, but the quality of color, shadow adjustments, tweaks using layers, etc is much better than DXO for me. I have the most recent version of DXO and the most recent permanent version of C1P to compare. The only edge I can give DXO is noise reduction. I've heard issues with C1P customer service from others but I've not had problems myself in the very rare times I've needed it.

[nemophoto]

I have all my old serial numbers and proof of purchases, so the support fault is with DXO, not me. It is true that C1P has had slow development and only recently supported newer Leica lenses, but the quality of color, shadow adjustments, tweaks using layers, etc is much better than DXO for me. I have the most recent version of DXO and the most recent permanent version of C1P to compare. The only edge I can give DXO is noise reduction. I've heard issues with C1P customer service from others but I've not had problems myself in the very rare times I've needed it.

I must admit, I have never had issues with DxO such as you describe. I also find its color rendition often better than C1. (I own, Lightroom, DxO, and C1, so have experience with all of them.) I find I prefer the workflow and color to be best with Lightroom, and DxO's color (especially using my own camera color profiles) is better than C1 (and uses the same camera profiles as Lightroom). Also, C1's implementation of layers is somewhat clunky. Is DxO for everyone? No, but it is certainly viable and a quality program in its own right.