I think it’s great that for you it’s not a basic function, but not so great that you defend its irrelevance because it’s not useful for your needs, I assure you that for many other users it is. You shoot in burst mode and you have 10 or 30 images that are almost the same, but there are 1, 2 or 3 that for various reasons are better than the others. Why do I have to go to another programme to choose them?
You get on your nerves about issues with .xmp or the iPhone. Not me, because I don’t use Photo Mechanic and I don’t have an iPhone. But your complaint seems reasonable to me. But you don’t find it reasonable for those of us who have been asking for this function for a long time, always getting evasive and sometimes irritating answers such as mixing deep prime in this matter.
Is it so difficult to understand?
I only ask to be able to compare 2 or more similar images, something quite logical since burst mode exists. Either I misunderstood you or your answer has nothing to do with my proposal.
would be great to choose them, press a function key or shortcut and they will shown in a compare window, with zoom function and the possibility to move one photo and the others will follow the selection
Thanks a lot to the developers in advance 
I fully understand your thoughts and wishes.
One really want to do the culling from a contact sheet or light table before running the roll through the Chromega D enlarger, copy and develop and drying every one and then spread them out on the table.
Only to get annoyed at the poorly working culling procedure.
PL is a parametric raw development tool.
Not a culling application.
There are far better purpose built culling solutions for that.
Well, as i always avoid to do a “wrong job”, your first sentence doesn´t make any sense to me. And (with a smile) without the ability to view an image, photolab would be a batch program or wouldn´t exist at all
In that case, since it is a parametric raw developer tool, why include functions such as assigning colours and stars to the photos? Let’s make it simpler, let it just develop and we’ll go to other programs to finish the job…
Why???
I think we can all agree that any feature exist in LR or any decent Post Processing software, we are as users entitled to ask for it.
No workarounds no flipping from one app. to another.
As a user when you buy license, thare is an agreement between you and the company. I will have to deal with the learning curve of a new software and they will give us decent upgrades each year in which we will keep on upgrading our software.
Does all of us think that the last two or three updates were really major updates as it should have been? I believe that some of us don’t really think so.
I would prefer to have some features as radial filter, dodge and burn and simply creative vignette (make it darker) but I realized it’s not on the roadmap, and no I wouldn’t like to buy Filmpack just because the “creative” vignette option is there
Is it good? this attitude? Like PL is no more than parametric raw editor, and the user shouldn’t expect anything else.
How meny PL users are we?
Could you check please how many views were on YouTube for PL6?
2K?, 3K? (I don’t consider the 1 minute intro - 9.3k)
It a joke
Yeah, in anlog times, we had to respect that order. Luckily technology has advanced and in an digital era, we are not bound by that order. Does dxo really want to restrict itself to some analog processes?
There are many use cases where I would like to compare different already developed images. Let’s say I have one edited image from a previous photo shoot. Now I have a new shooting with a different lighting setup, but I’d like to have the editing in a similar style. For that case, I’d really like to compare my image directly in Photolab, and adjust the image on the fly, without having to export and import to and from other applications.
Yes DxO added some DAM functionality as it didn’t really affect the development process in the core.
Culling and previewing multiple high resolution raw photos while applying real time effects will put massive strain on the system for the user.
Are we willing to accept that?
Could DxO find a way to pre-process or background process and cache them up?
Could we accept using another more optimised tool for some of these functions?
What are the ROI for DxO to invest in this and what do they have to put aside to achieve it?
Perhaps they could and even will but so far they have not.
I can understand them as well as I understand you and your needs.
Trying to be everything for everyone often have far more down sides then ups.
There are other reasons to compare two corrected images other than batch culling.
Why a big burden on the user, if it would be enough to compare jpg previews as other competent developing programs like Lr or C1 do?
It is just a matter of discarding very similar images, usually taken in burst mode. Workflow is an essential element when working on sessions with large numbers of images.
I have the impression that complaining about certain shortcomings is interpreted as an attack on the developers of this software, when in fact if we ask for it, it is because we wish PL could compete on equal terms with the other two tenors, something that despite its great performance it is far from achieving.
An impressive discussion about a minor issue: In my workflow I’m simply using Faststone Image Viewer to compare up to 4 pics e.g. from bursts. I do this with small jpg which the camera produced besides raw-files and do this directly after downloading the files from the card and deleting technically failed or just unsatisfying pics and before touching any rawfile at all.
Next step is to delete all raws with no corresponding jpg. I do this manually in the Explorer in Detail view. As I use different symbols for jpg and .nef this is easy to identify. Of course I have setup a temporary backup-folder.
In doubt or when PL-converting is necessary before judging quality I compare again after PL did its job to find the best result.
Easy.
So there is no need to allocate DXO-development-capacity for this. Thanks.
I can mitigate a lot this effect by going down to -100 on the Noise Model slider. But even at this level, there are still a few areas where some non existent details are sharpened, and some existing details are smoothed (hairs for instance). I’m still investigating if this level can be my new default export setting or if I stay with Deep Prime to have less surprises.
Frankly, I have been comparing PL 5 and PL 6 and I don’t find much reason to upgrade. The difference between DP and DPXD seems irrelevant to me. I haven’t done all possible tests but I have done quite a few with very high ISO and very low light. What DPXD gives you with the same settings as DP can be achieved with the latter by exaggerating the noise correction and lens sharpness sliders. The inevitable consequence is more artefacts in critical areas.
The new colour space is undoubtedly superior but, apart from the fact that it comes too late compared to LR and C1, it is of no particular relevance to my work.
The ReShape tool, by including cloning, is also superior to the old Repair. It depends on whether one uses it frequently and does not want to get out of a non-destructive software, not forgetting that there are other applications that do it as well or better.
Maybe I’m wrong and someone can convince me otherwise.
If you’re happy with DPL5, why should anybody try to convince you to upgrade? That’s the beauty of a perpetual license, perpetual within a well limited range of OS versions, that is.
It is not that someone has to convince me, I am saying that perhaps I have not considered some aspects that could be relevant, both in the new functions that I have mentioned and in others that I have omitted. This is a discussion forum and it is about exchanging views.
On the other hand, I am not entirely happy with PL5, but I have talked about its shortcomings before.
Imo, the greatest impact is in the return of perspective correction tool as well as the new working colour space and its collateral changes.
Perspective corrections have been present in DxO OpticsPro with force parallels and force rectangle tools. Then, the 8 point tool was introduced in DxO ViewPoint and the force parallels and force rectangle tools were moved from DOP to DVP, but I cannot say exactly, in which versions of DOP and DVP the change was done. Now, DPL6 brings back the perspective tool. The impact might not be noticed by all who do have a DVP3 license, but might be important if you consider upgrading to DPL 6 and not upgrading to DVP4,
DxO Wide Gamut working colour space and all its collaterals (soft proofing, colour rendering- and export feature changes) impacts editing greatly, as has been illustrated and discussed in the forum. Some of us welcome the new WCS, some don’t, because it can force us to re-tread our ways to the targeted image colour character or appearance. DxO is not the only app that came up with such important changes though. Both Capture One and Lightroom have done it in the past.
I read, skimmed most of the post’s and geesh same old same fibe.
This yearly release is alway’s a moment to bash the developers that they didn’t did enough didn’t bring what was expected and more. Nothing new. And every time Adobe is the comparisontool.
Lots of dxo techpeople and beta testers put in a lot of time and effort in the path of the way to this release. That new workingcolorspace (which was a great demand of users) effects a lot of parts in the algorithm of photolab.
Preview engine(monitor), demosiacing engine, denoising, optical correction, (which is realtime reacting on your edits), color handling, and yes export handling.
They rebuild the hole car so to speak. The core of the application is rewritten.
Does the size difference between the two (dxo and adobe inc.) not be a factor?
Resources in personal, money, and such. And who want’s a clone of Lr/photoshop?
Like i want a BMW-like car but not a BMW because it’s too expencive but i demand the same driving experience kind of thinking.
For everyone who likes Lr more but needs the denoise and optical module just buy pureraw and stay at Lr/photoshop. Don’t be mad you didn’t get a Lr clone.
My take on this is simple.
1 if a seperate application does a job better then the main one, use that and in the same time advise, help, provoke, support the developers of the main one to improve there’s so you can switch in the future and slimline your workflow.
2 if something doesn’t work properly show them why you think it’s doesn’t work and what you think would work. (not i want the same as Lr’s tool because there is something as copy protection and they need to have something just different enough to be clear for claims.)
3 be critical but not unreasonable hars in your comment’s. Clear, direct, to the point ok.
If you don’t like it? Don’t upgrade. Your arm isn’t twisted so your free to move away or wait for better options.
It’s easy to bash and grump at the release and yes i have also things which are not working as i would like and frustrate/anoying me.
Better Xmp/iptc/metadata control in the DAM is one of them.
Free choice Side by side comparion of multiple images.
Preview fully rendered image béfore export on demand.
Posibility of renaming virtualcopy’s like “master image shotnumber_take one”.
And i think i forget some.
But for most of those problems there are workarounds.
Let a release be more of positive fibe. Progres.
Take time to understand the new features, investigate, try to see if it’s just learning how it works instead of it doens’t work as i expected so it’s rubbisch.
Sorry for the rant,
Read it as an other point of view , it’s not Thé Truth, same as other point of views.
What I was trying to say was “if you adjust the noise model slider does it make the problem better or worse”?
English and Australian don’t always match 
I’m not sure of what “the problem” is, Ian … You could try it and see.
John