That’s why I have campaigned to rename or add a subname on virtual copies.
Pascal
3 Likes
Precisely my point as John-M highlighted — when should it mark a point to return and when should it ask you about committing subsequent changes? This is the difficulty. I’ve postulated some logical points but I don’t think you’ve confirmed that’s how you’re thinking of it?
That would indeed be a great idea, even aside from the topic at hand here. There’s going to be a reason for the copy and that should be able to be reflected in some way on the image, so you know what the intent was when you come back later.
I can only say what CaptureNx did as only worked with that.
One image. At the top of the edit window a selection box from where one could select an editlist. And original was also an option, the image just from the converter. This is what I call a pure parametric approach: a basic image and an editlist attached to it containing the used tools and there parameters, or no editlist, the ‘original’.
DxO is doing the same. Only the user interface is different. Why creating a virtual copy? Replace the reset button with a selection box giving me the choice between different edits and the ‘original’. Pure parametric 
If you want I can make a screenshot of that box. I just don’t know how to post an image here.
George
But what is wrong with virtual copies?
A virtual copy is … virtual! This means that it takes almost no space on the hard disk (a few bytes in the .dop file). It is much more meaningful than a list or a dialog since we have the exact image of the state of the settings of this copy.
And for the original, first we must say that there is no real original since it depends in part on the choices made by DxO or the user. And then, if we want to come back to it, simply apply the basic preset.
Virtual copies are a very practical tool for keeping certain particular states of a treatment.
They come in addition to a “normal” practice of parametric software which allows, if I want to go back to a setting, to modify only this single setting and not to have to redo all the other settings modified since the last action.
1 Like
The “old” virtual copies were much easier to use. Having to mess about copying and pasting the right lot of changes is not so easy as just deleting the unwanted ones leaving the one wanted. Why they had to change it is beyond me.
1 Like
Hello John,
because supposedly many useres were confused by the previous way of doing things - hence DXO
changed it.
Sigi
I do not understand how deleting unwanted copies is more confusing than having to copy then paste the chosen changes to the master then deleting the virtual copies is. It was so easy, those that were to go just delete them leaving the version wanted. My wife has stopped using them as she can’t be bothered to do the extra messing about after she made the mistake to deleting the master copy
I feel with you. I also liked the previous way more.
Indeed.
This is typically the case if users asking for everything and its opposite!
Someone were afraid to lost the “original” edition.
DxO has improved something that worked well 
I fought against this bad idea where PhotoLab loses its simplicity.
But we can’t blame DxO to listening customers.
Pascal
1 Like
There is a good german word for this: “Verschlimmbesserung”
3 Likes
They are good at that!
In french we says “A trop vouloir bien faire”.
Wanting to do too much.
Pascal
In English, it is the grammatically incorrect, phrase “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!” It simply means don’t change something that doesn’t need to be changed.
Mark
4 Likes