Recently, I appreciate my investments mainly through the prism of the performance they bring me. I try to say that we all have different needs. I use specialized printing software and its price is twice as high as the price of a Photolab. First, because Photolab is not the best choice for prepress software, and secondly because the print is much more complicated than watermarks. In terms of printing, the PhotoLab is unnecessary. PhotoLab is far from being a full editor, and for photographs that are designed for a portfolio I’m pretty sure they will go through a better editor and in this case the watermarks will be placed afterwards. And in this case, the export with a few clicks for a web is something I would appreciate. I appreciate photolab as a fully adequate tool in reportage photography.

TillTheEndofEternity made a suggestion for Windows which is free.

If you are on a Mac, I can make some recommendations. What we all need from PhotoLab are the full size jpegs (for print, for masters for resizing for web) and the TIFFS for re-editing in a pixel editor for advanced masking and combining of multiple pictures (HDR for instance). I suggest you find one of the $10 or $20 utilities for resizing tools (higher compression, smaller dimensions, watermarks, removing EXIF) to fill in this part of your workflow.

The issue is that as soon as DxO or any other developer add a watermark function, there are another thirty or forty feature request on how it looks, can it be a png, can a logo png be combined with text, positioning, alternate transparency.ĭxO is not an efficient tool for resizing for web (where watermarks are necessary). That’s why I think that this is a matter of desire by DXO.Ī primitive watermark function is no problem. It is activated when the trial period expires and marks the exported photos with the “DXO PhotoLab DEMO”. However, there is one detail: The code that is needed to a large extent exists in a PhotoLab.

Fsresizer