Aha!!! Yes, it worked!!!
Thank you!!!
Shouldn’t all this be down at the bottom of my screen, under the Category: DXO FILMPACK ??
Because it is not exclusive to FilmPack. You can remove it from the Color palette and add it to the FilmPack palette if you want. Don’t forget to resave your workspace once you’ve done it.
Aha! As far as I know, my Workspace is still “Advanced”, and I don’t feel like changing anything.
Current settings and image:
L1004328 | 2022-09-26.dng.dop (16.7 KB)
It’s not a photo I intend to share or anything, but it does look like a very plausible photo I might have taken with B&W film.
Gosh, it’s strange that things that looked so “confusing” before, now seem plausible and make sense. Day after day, week after week, PL5 feels more “intuitive” to me. This forum is more and more like a classroom. I should send each of you an apple!
I assume you meant you can accomplish that by creating custom versions of those two palettes since standard palettes can’t be modified.
Mark
Lots of information on this topic.
Going back to the first Nik plugins, SilverEfex was the first one I bought. I really liked the results. Starting out serious shooting in the late 1960s, I was a Tri-X guy (mostly) and Nik certainly caught that emulsion. In college, a couple of my classmates were shooting Ilford B&W and when I tried those emulsions in Nik, they also looked like what my buddies had been producing. Since then, the Nik plugins went through some ownership changes, and I ended up with the whole suite.
With the advent of mirrorless (Fuji) I’ve settled on a routine of shooting with Acros simulation in the cameras, but also saving RAW. I’ve also shifted from mostly PhotoShop to mostly PhotoLab. Sometimes the B&W JPEGs are fine, but sometimes they need a little more help in PP (I shoot a fair amount of night shots) to get a little more out of the file, or to add color filters. It may just be a habit, but I prefer SilverEfex over FilmPack. I’m in the middle of a long-term project with 99.99% of the photos in B&W. When I was in school, I always knew how the image would render with Tri-X, but a few decades later – not so much. So shooting in the Acros setting is very nice. (Kinda cheating, but nice.)
Prior to mirrorless, I shot with an M8, and then an M9. After about my second card with the M8, I decided not to bother with JPEGs at all. The camera saved faster with just DNGs, and those Leica DNGs were the easiest to work with of any RAW format.
Hey, welcome to the forum! I’ve also got an M8, but mostly use it with an infrared filter, for some spectacular B&W results - very dark skies, white leaves, and so on. I still love my M8.2, but I mostly reach for my M10.
I’m curious why you shoot jpg alongside the raw images. I’ve got a Fuji X100F, and I tried shooting jpg+raf but I rarely used the jpg images. What are the reasons you prefer one over the other? If you have time, maybe upload some of your results here, and tell us what you used, and how you processed it. I used Lightroom for years, and switched to PL for several reasons.
What you wrote about the M8 - that camera had a terrible way of processing jpg images. So many people said so much about it, and after seeing my own results, I completely switched over to the .dng format.
People in this forum have hit me over the head when I posted a few images in jpg format. I guess even if they look fine, there is no way to make big changes if I need to. The last shoot that I did in India, family photos, had me shooting in jpg+raf, but nobody else was interested in my .raf images. They preferred jpg, for ease of use. Which Fuji are you using? In many ways, I preferred the version with interchangeable lenses, but I’ve never used one of them.
I shoot the JPEGs because sometimes you just need a quicky. Also, you can run through them in Bridge pretty fast and get a feel for how the day’s shooting went. I like Bridge because it allows me to keep my own filing system.
Fujis? X100F, X-T3, X-T4, GFX50S II, and X30.
Most people who shoot RAW+JPG seem to do so because they have need of an immediate JPG for dispatch to someone or somewhere.
But every RAW file already contains a full size JPG file created by the camera, which can be extracted using something like ExifTool…
exiftool -jpgfromraw -b _JNA0001.NEF > _JNA0001.jpg
Of course, this gives you a file that has already been processed by the camera according to the (crude) picture settings available and really isn’t suitable for “real” processing in the way that the RAW file would be.
If you have no immediate need for a JPG whilst shooting, all you are doing by saving RAW+JPG is using up more space on your memory cards.
1 Like
Nikon contains a full size jpg but I’m not sure of other brands. Using the save option in an image browser also extracts the jpg.
George
I just checked Canon and it does as do others, but the whole point of having a JPG image at all is usually for sending by mail or to a website so full size is less relevant. No matter what size, the point is that there is usually no need to save a full size JPG as well as a full size RAW at the time of shooting when you can convert the RAW to any size JPG you want in post processing.
But you don’t need exiftool for it. Just an image browser that reads raw files is enough. View it and do a safe or safe as.
If you use the Adobe dng converter to create a dng file with the raw data and you set the embedded jpg file size to what’s usual for that brand, you get an file size exactly as the original. My experience with the nef files anyway. That makes me still wondering what that dng file is exactly.
George
I always travel without a computer and the small jpegs serve me well for sharing impressions with friends. (Canon small jpegs are 1/2 linear image size files and take up almost no space)
1 Like
Maybe not on Windows, but on Mac it’s possible.
@Joanna ,
If you delete something from one of the standard palettes and want to use that feature at a later time, from where do you restore it!. In Wndows, you can copy tools from standard palettes to custom palettes, but you cannot delete or reorder tools within the standard palettes themselves. It seems like this is yet another difference between Windows and Mac.
Mark
Hi Mark
so you have to shout out loud DIFFERENCE 
1 Like
Of course, if you are using a non-standard aspect ratio (such as the GFX 65:24), you’ll see exactly what you composed and shot in the JPEG, while the RAW may only show the native aspect ratio. Depending on how your workflow is set up (software), if you don’t want to apply SDC to the RAW file. the JPEG allows a much faster way of previewing.
Doing a post-processing extraction of a JPEG from a raw – an additional task that the camera already did for you – is a personal decision, but certainly is a factor if you’re doing a shoot of between 300 and 500 frames in a day.
it’s already in the list 
1 Like
What you posted looks like a tool for the creation of custom palettes. We can create custom user palettes in Windows as well although it is WYSIWYG and doesn’t require lists. We create an empty custom palette and drag and drop tools from other palettes directly into it. If we drag and drop a tool from a standard palette it only copies the tool to the target custom palette. If we drag an drop a tool from one custom palette to another we can either copy it or move it.
Are you saying, as @Joanna did, that you can actually remove tools from the original standard palettes that PhotoLab supplies when you install it, and use this tool to restore them to the standard palettes? That still does indicate how one would restore the original state of the DxO supplied standard palettes if they are all heavily modified. I suspect we may be discussing two different things here. Perhaps you call the original palettes supplied by DxO by some other name. I am surprised that the Mac version uses lists to create user palettes.
Mark
For better or worse (mostly better) I’ve been playing around with my Workspace for a year or two, as others have suggested improvements for me. My last saved Workspace I labeled “May 15, 2022” and it has worked well for me ever since. The single biggest thing it did for me, was to make it obvious what things I needed to do on most of my images, and other “stuff” was left off. I guess I got reasonably good at knowing what things I most often needed to do, and where those tools were. Eventually it felt like moving into a new, or remodeled home (or kitchen) and I didn’t need to figure out where to find things when needed. That’s the best example of what I’m trying to say here.
Now, that even though I’m far from an “expert” at PL5, I feel comfortable using it. I’ve noticed that I’m no less comfortable simply using the ADVANCED workspace. That being the case, I’m likely (at least on my desktop) to switch back to the ADVANCED workspace as my default.
I’m sure there are lots of benefits from changing my palettes, but I tend to forget things, and if I leave the palettes alone, I think I’ll be fine. Nowadays I think “simplification” is good. The older I get, the worse my memory becomes.
There’s also GIGO. Garbage In, Garbage Out. Apparently there is no way to turn a lousy photo into a good photo, no matter how much time I spend in PL5. The bottom line is I need to “get it right in the camera”. Currently, I think I am doing well if I can create just ONE photograph a week on my screen to where I am pleased with it, to the point I could make it into a “screensaver”.