Browser/Dam


#1

Is it planned to have the functionality of the image browser extended to include full file management as per Lr. I hate having to jump to Finder in order to create/delete a folder or sub-folder.


#2

As a stopgap, I use FastRawViewer as my file handler. A tip I got from someone on here. Works reasonably well, as you can see EXIF and other data as well as create, move, delete and “Open with…”, along with tagging etc


#3

Thanks. I am aware of ways around it but it all amounts to the same thing - doing it outside of DPL. What I want to know is are the devs going to change this seeing as they are upgrading the browse module to a DAM?


(Alec Kinnear) #4

Colin, there’s no need to replicate all OS functionality within DxO PhotoLab. Have you even tried FastRawViewer to manage incoming files? FRV is all of $15 (in comparison to PhotoLab at €200 plus in any Elite combination, even on sale).

DxO PhotoLab is about the worst possible way to handle ingestion, sorting, rating and triage.

PhotoLab is designed from the ground up as a powerful RAW development tool (with some pixel editing via U-points recently incorporated but with severe performance issues - hopefully fixed soon) not a DAM. As powerful a RAW editor as PhotoLab is, it will be years (if ever) before PhotoLab will be a time effective way to choose selects.

It sounds like you are complaining that your car is not a tractor (they both have four wheels and can run on roads) and does not traverse fields effectively. There’s nothing worse than all-in-one, master-of-none software. There’s a reason we are not all using Lightroom 6 (the last standalone version) or Lightroom CC.


#5

Alec, either DxO are building a dam or they are not. Why bother with searches, exif, sorting, keywording if they are not going all the way. That makes no sense to me whatsoever and why would I really want to view thumbnails in another viewer when they do not reflect the edits as in DPL. Simply I do not want to keep jumping from app to app just to create folders etc. Incidentally some of us are still using Lr.


(Christian) #6

I would support this as far as folder creation/deletion/renaming is concerned. PL can copy and move pictures. It should be possible to create the targets for these operations too.

But your initial request is a bit vague: “DAM”, “full file management”

Are there more requirements than folder manipulation?


#7

Not really Christian - think of the functionality in Lr which behaves in much the same was as Finder on Mac. That said I would like the ability to hide all the folders I don’t not want to see or to have a sort of fave area where I can see only the folders I designate. Can’t see the point in being buried by folders which have nothing to do with the job in hand.


(Alec Kinnear) #8

Colin, this is exactly why DxO adding any DAM features at all was a slippery slope to hell. First DxO add a basic file browser in PhotoLab and now you want a Finder replacement (I’m a Mac user) inside PhotoLab. There are no end of DAM improvements, none of which contribute to better looking output or a more responsive processing interface.

At least you’re honest that you won’t be satisfied until PhotoLab is a DAM first and a RAW processor second.


(Peter) #9

I am on the fench in this matter.
1 indeed if you decide to make a DAM then be sure to make also a manage-function(move delete rename tag, …) not only a read/search one.
2 thrue, why that much time and effort in a never ending story? (as some people say.) wile this could be focused on improvement of the the main use, development of a image? And leave the DAM to others. ( If they say “it’s not a DAM it’s a search function, you need a DAM to use keywords implement.” it will be fine by me.)

i don’t know, don’t be involved in the big picture of DxO 's future.

What i do know they are somewhere half way, so point of no return is near or behind the present.
So i didn’t upgrade to v2 and i never do every year, only every two years.
I just wait and see what they come up with.
if its good, i will upgrade , if not, then depents on the pricetag.
I am a consumer not a company so it’s only GAS not nescesaty to have the latest version. :wink:


#10

That is my point Alec. They are building a dam. There has been much debate and the argument whether to do so or not is over. So if they are going that way they should do it fully. In any event there is an argument that the basic browser needs cleaning up. Do not understand your reference to my position in all this but there us no need to explain.


(John Barrett) #11

Photo Supreme which I use has more new added options and hence updates than any other program I have. To become as good a DAM as it DxO would have to do little else than developed the DAM and then it would take years. As many of us pointed out before the danger is fallowing the DxO one path! The last review I read on PL decried its lack of fuji raw files which in my view would have been a more profitable path to develop.


#12

But John has not this debate been had. DxO are building the DAM and not going Fuji and that is the end of it. But, as they are building the DAM they might as well build a decent one. I guess DxO have done their homework. I suspect that this forum is a very small proportion of overall DPL users so probably not representative.


(John Barrett) #13

I agree they are, DxO also developed the One and ignored the comments about its effect on the RAW program development.


#14

I too use Photo Supreme as my DAM.
As Photo Supreme shines as perhaps the best DAM - PhotoLab shines is able to develop and produce amazing photos.

I wish PL would be more responsive and actually use the GPU w instead of relying on the cpu in macOS.

But I’m rather see PL kept being positioned and pushed toward developer and not DAM.
Going after LR is way too expensive. Better to take their own position and make sure PL owns it.


#15

If you visit some of the other forums you will see that there is an epademic of: we hate the Adobe subscription we want a Lr alternative. Clearly DxO see an opportunity and are after it. Only time will tell if they are right or wrong but there is no turning back now and what they have done re search is pretty good imo. I was quite happy using Bridge but as I have said if DxO is going this way let’s get it right.


(Larry McWhorter) #16

With all this discussion of a DAM, I would really like for PL to be able to search Metadata more easily for items such as keywords, Focal length, Metering mode, Exposure mode, Lens model and many more. This would, IMO, make an Adobe like DAM not needed. My experience with Lightroom and its DAM totally turned me against the ‘Adobe Way’. A DAM can be way over thought. I use a nice program called Zoner ZPS X to manage my photo files and the “DAM” works quite well. I store all my files by year, month day as well as camera model. All of my RAW photo development is done in PhotoLab because its much more comprehensive than Zoner for RAW development but the file management of Zoner is well thought out with out being way over the top like the Adobe products.