The initial suggestion was to make PL like PhotoShop, so I responded to that. And PL and PS are 2 completely different tools as PL is a real RAW processor and PS is much more than just a RAW processor.
I haven’t worked with C1 so I can’t speak for that.
I think Keith maybe set the words on this more clearly and this is one of the very few times here in DXO Forums I find myself not agreeing to what Keith writes 
In fact I don’t really understand what that word “pixel editor” means since both C1 and even the Local Adjustment in Photolab definitely can and certainly do “edit pixels” with many of it’s tools.
What differs Photoshop from the RAW-konverters is that it’s a tool that has a lot of tools mainly made to design overlays on top of the basic image. It may be texts or other elements more commonly used in the business world to sell all sorts of stuff. Photoshop is about design and layout and not primarely about converting RAW which it’s not even capable of opening. Of mainly historical reasons people has come to use it even for pretty simple postprocessing that I today find pretty inefficient, because it really decreases efficiency and add today unnessassary complexity to our work flow and forces us to use really storage and processing inefficient ancient file formats like uncompressed 16 bit TIFF. Photoshop has it’s place but that is to a very shrinking extent when it comes to postprocessing and refining RAW-data.
I have had access to Photoshop since the early ninities but I have stopped using it since many years now and today with C1 21 and 22 I have no reason to look that way anymore because all I need now is there already in C1 and it seems like both Camera Raw and even Lightroom is getting there too now. I think even Adobe has done a very good job the last year så I guess even their users will have far fewer reasons to look to Photoshop for some extra polishing in the years to come. Adobes users are just to congratulate to a better postprocessing work flow too. They have waited a long time for that.
Yes, but no blend modes and you cannot move the layers around (top to bottom, etc).
You’re dumping blame on DxO for your problems with DNG. It’s not DxO’s fault. DNGs are the worst, as you are now seeing. Stay away from DNG. There are myriad problems with DNG, not the least of which is the extra work to convert. I know, it’s the same workflow for TIFs, but you will NEVER have this problem with TIFs as you do with DNGs.
I’m curious; what images are you having a hard time importing as RAW files? You might not have a module built yet, but I have never seen a RAW file of any kind (other than the problem you describe about DNGs) when importing to DxO PL.
No I´m not!
I have been using the DNG-format for I think for 15 years both privately and professionally both with Lightroom and ither softwares and in Enterprise DAM-environments with no problems at all worth mentioning. A large part of the cultural heritage world of museums etc. (I think even National Library of Congress in the US like many other libraries use it too) all over the world has standardized on DNG. In some environments there really are some interesting advantages when using DNG in the workflows compared to using RAW for example.
DXO also corrected a well-known problem with the colors in the upgrade 6.1.1 but that is not the problem I talked about. The for me more interesting problem that isn´t really a problem just in Photolab is the fact that Photolab reject DNG-files made from unsupported RAW-files (that DXO hasn´t made adapters for). We have had a long discussion about that in other treads and in that case the problem is common even when it comes to RAW-files from new camera models that I have explained in detail elsewere. Files from Sony A7 IV, Nikon D9 just to take a couple of examples. In my case I had to wait about six months before they managed to provide that support, which is an absolutely unacceptable long time.
Many professionals had used the predecessor A7 III in production and I guess quite a few professionals waited for the A7 IV support to come too. Since I know by fooling their importfilters using the A7 III model code even in the A7 IV files I could see that it works perfectly fine even with the code of the older model and even more. As soon as I got in there are no problem using any of the import filter settings for any other camera in the Photolab list over supported models. I had no problems using a profile for my A7 IV files from a Canon 5D MK IV or whatever. So, I can´t see any reason why DXO can´t let us users decide for ourselves if we would like to start without any profile at all or as an option using another profile of their choice. Opening up this file profile lock should fix a lot of the obstacles the DNG-users meet today.
It seems that DXO just accepts DNG saved first in some of the DNG-products (or maybe created in Lightroom). When I created a DNG in Capture One 23, I was refused to open it in Photolab but if I instead exported this file from the beginning from Photolab in DNG, I had no problems edit it in C1 and reexport it to Photolab and reopen it there, edit it a bit and reexport to C1 again. I can´t see anything else than Photolab is looking in EXIF for a DXO Photolab -stamp and if it doesn´t find that it will not accept that DNG-file. Even this has to be solved in order not creating unessessary obstacles for the DNG-users. DXO finally has to understand that DNG-files can come from other softwares than Photolab or via the DXO-plugin in Lightroom.
If you look in the middle section in the screen capture below you can see DXO Photolab-stamp in the Program name element of Windows Info Tab. Without that stamp in the EXIF of our DNG-images there seems like it will be no playing in Photolab with these images.
With that said I´m a little happy about DXO fixing the color differences between the JPEG-exports and the DNG-files in the latest version 6.1.1. Now we are just waiting for the rest. Photolab will not ever be used by the professionals all over the world using DNG in their workflows before DXO fixes these obstacles that prevents them to do so today. Just the fact that it can take up to half a year to fix an import profile for a new camera will disqualify them in that part of the converter market. No professionals can live with that. I think most of them will understand that an advice to all this people to stay away from DNG, will just backfire on DXO and their market shares and DXO:s reputation as an alternative to Lightroom. Not a chance they will abandon DNG. They will continue to use Lightroom instead.
To my knowledge the software tag is in regard to the software or firmware of camera or input device used to generate the image.
DxO decisions or strategies for dng support or expansion of market into a new direction are their own. We can give dxo a hint or explain our wishes but like adobe went their own way with subscriptions - to many customers frustrations - DxO are free to choose their path as well.
I rest my case; you would not be having these problems with TIF files. Only DNG. If DNG were raw files, PL6 would recognize them if supported. You cannot open TIF files of ANY kind in PL6. It is a RAW converter, not an image editor. Yes, you can edit images in PL, but only for supported RAW files. Stop using DNGs and you won’t have this problem.
Where did you get that idea from? I have worked with TIFF files in all versions of PL from v1. Also with JPEG files. Certain features like DeepPRIME noise reduction might not be available but everything else works fine.
I’m afraid that is incorrect.
Mark
TIFF is a more than 35 years old fileformat that I don´t want to use at all if I can avoid it. It’s just terrible. There are better things today - but just not supported yet either by Photolab and Capture One. Many of us are waiting for DXO and Capture One to implement HEIF/HEIC what is now standard at least in all new Sony-cameras and I´m sure in the rest of the other vendors too.
It is said to need half the storage of JPEG but maintaining the RAW-data quality. How does that compare to TIFF??? It is DXO that have chosen to use DNG as a transfer file format between for example Lightroom and PureRaw/Photolab but the world is not just Adobe is it so they ought to make it work with other softwares too or at least open for HEIF if they can´t manage in an other way. It is 2023 now.
DXO sells it´s NIC Collection that is bolted on to Photolab with a “start button”. It can convert a RAW to TIFF as a transfer format but not store the editing data to DOP-files or database. Even that I think they have to change. As it is now it´s not very much of an integration. They have had a long time to sort that now.
“TIFF is a more than 35 years old fileformat that I don´t want to use at all if I can avoid it. It’s just terrible.”
In what way terrible? Certainly not image quality.
Yes, I, too, have opened TIF files in previously versions of PL. But in v6 if I try to open TIF files in PL it will not open them. Maybe it’s a setting?
Are you on the Windows or Mac version? Could you possibly upload, or post on a sharing site, one of these TIFF files that you are unable to open in PhotoLab 6? There’s no setting I’m aware of in PhotoLab which would prevent you from opening TIFF files.
Mark
In the way that something called TIFF can contain a surprisingly wide variance of file types. TIFF is not only TIFF, but also a super compressed Fax-Format in monochrome only with a different X- to Y-ratio, meaning a square of originally 100 × 100 bit becomes 100 × 96 bit. Some TIFs (baseline TIFF) will work in all editors, others only in selected ones. And a TIFF can contain the same picture in multiple resolutions or consist of more than one images, like a PDF, just without vectors. As soon as there are α-channels involved, some TIFF-editors cannot open the file. For an extended read, see TIFF - Wikipedia
It’s easier to do a video of what is happening. I’ll post it here in a minute.
That won’t do much good. Some of us know what to look for in files and metadata, which will be far more useful.
Ah! I found it. It was a setting in the thumbnail section in the “Select Item to Display” setting in the lower-left of the workspace. I knew it was something simple.
Joana; what do you look for in “files and metadata”?
That depends on the fault the file provokes.
Are you referring to a filter? If you’re on the Mac version things can be quite different than on the Winsows version.
Mark
The local adjustments palette already contains layers, one for each adjustment.
