I guess, PhilHawkins was talking e.g. about this
But – as you already said – it doesn’t touch your existing files or structure.
If understood, how that works in LR, its simple to repair / restore backups
as well once in a while to delete old ones.
Okay… The hex editor showed 2 places only. What command parameters did you use to unearth another tag containing "M8…*?
exiftool -G -a filename
I get a sneaking feeling that xmp:model maps onto exif:model, which might explain the hex editor only finding two mentions.
more mentions could be in scrambled areas, but then, they’d not come up under EXIF or XMP…
It’s good to know all those other locations exist, but for me, changing just that one place was enough to allow PL5 to accept my image.
I’m wondering now if I ought to change it back to “M8” when my editing is finished, so the file will be less confusing to others who might look at it?
One question - since what I did yesterday achieved the desired result, getting PL5 to accept the image, is that all I need to do?
…which leads to a more important suggestion - why can’t DxO simply display “Un-Supported Camera”, and allow people to edit the image anyway? Why should it bother anyone that I am using their software to edit photos from my M8??? Keep the “!” that they show on the thumbnail, but allow people to use the editing tools.
To me, this whole scenario is a silly attempt to keep people using “supported cameras”, but why?
All it achieved was to get me to learn DarkTable - I’ve got no intention of stopping to use my unsupported camera, only to stop using DxO software for those images - until this “trick” solved the problem.
DxO is striving for the best and is willing to sacrifice some flexibility/usefulness in exchange. If DxO were to overcome such elitist goals, they could make a lot more people happy.
Until them, we have to use kludges and workarounds, which are easy in your case but might be less so in cases where we want to mod lens info too.
Regarding your files. I’d keep one set untouched and one set of copies that include the modifications. This will take some space, but you could move the untouched originals to your external drive(s).
What Exif Editor changed was the exif:model tag and, fortunately, that is the tag that PL reads for the camera model. If you had chosen another metadata editor and it had only written the xmp:model tag, PL would still have refused to edit your file.
If I were you, using Exif Editor, I would leave it as it is, as the Unique Camera Model tag still shows the original M8 value.
Yes. It would seem once you have placated the DxO gods, everything seems to be fine.
I know I can get a better image from my M10 than my M8, and I’m only using the M8 for one of two types of photography:
a) Walkabouts, where I’m not serious, just looking for fun photos to capture, and
b) Infrared, where the M8 is currently my only choice.
On the other (third?) hand, I’ve long since learned that for the highest possible technical image quality without buying a new camera body, I should use my D750. It’s like one of those “Swiss Army knives” that has tools for just about anything.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the title of this thread is “Features/Improvements I’d like to see in PL”, and after these past discussions, I think one is now obvious.
Allow people to edit images from un-supported cameras. Feel free to warn people about it, but don’t prevent them from doing so.
DxO is only going to get aggravation from people like me who have been upset about this for years, only to learn that there is a simple work-around. I could write this much more strongly, but my words would not be nice. To be blunt, the fact that DxO knows about my camera and lens and can correct imperfections is absolutely NOT why I bought, have, and use PhotoLab. I’ve gone from version 3, to 4, to 5, and will continue to buy new releases, but what I enjoy is the EDITING TOOLS. Or, simply put, DarkTable doesn’t (yet) have Control Points, and Control Lines.
To be equally blunt, but for this forum, and the wonderful people in it, I might well be using DarkTable for everything by now. It has been like a crash course in learning SO MUCH MORE about photography, and a lot of that has nothing to do with “which editor” to use.
That is one side of the medal, if your cam is supported – and the other is the lens.
To make full use of PL’s splendid capabilities, there is no choice → use a supported combination.
Unfortunately, that doesn’t always work. You are fortunate in that the RAW data in your files is in the same format for both models.
I have a good number of files from my Nikon D100, which I would dearly love to “revive” in PL but, even after “tweaking” them, PL throws a wobbly and tells me that it can’t load the image data.
Hang on! I wonder if I use Adobe DNG Converter to create DNG files, and then edit the metadata in them?… 
I’ll be back
That is quite logical, but I’m maybe not such a logical person.
I select an editor to work with my camera gear.
I do not select my camera gear to work with my editor.
Besides, editors are not “forever”. I used several, then settled on Lightroom, then tried Affinity, and settled on PhotoLab. Then I got involved with DarkTable, and still am, but I’ll keep DarkTable “in my pocket” and use PhotoLab for now.
Good luck! D100 might be just too old, but DNG converter might make the files acceptable to PL.
Well…
I ran a D100 file through Adobe DNG Converter to give me a DNG file. Then I used ExifTool to change the model to ‘NIKON D200’ and opening it in PL…
… which means I have to do a bit more fiddling but, just by using the WB pipette on a cloud, I got…
According to DxO’s supported gear list, the D100 is supported since (in?) DPL version 1…
It might have been supported in PL1, but certainly not in PL3, PL4 or PL5
Congratulations!!!
Quick question - can PhotoLab do an “automatic” conversion? Can you create your own tool in PhotoLab that makes a fixed change in White Balance, to get this result?
What did PL say for white balance before and after making this change?
Maybe you can be even smarter, if PL allows this, to create a tool you might rename as “WB Correct D100” and that can be the first thing you do when opening one of these images? You might want to fine-tune the end result anyway, but this would get you closer.
…so back to the title of this thread, if it doesn’t already exist, can we request the ability to create our own custom “tools” that run in PhotoLab in addition to all the existing tools?
Before…
After…
This is called a partial preset. It is easy to create and would certainly provide a better starting point. As it is, my default preset includes setting the WB to 5600 / ±0, so it is obvious that there is something relating to WB, in the file, that changed drastically between the D100 and the D200.
Like I said, this is already there in the form of a partial preset.
How would I create a “partial preset” that I can select when needed? Just create my own partial preset, save it, and then select it as needed? I know about “presets”, but not about “partial presets”.
Also - what is the difference between Temperature" and “Tint” ?
@mikemyers, you can find such info in the User Guide.
You can access it directly from PL’s help menu.
Well, that took me to Page 111, Color, which does show the sliders, but doesn’t explain what I was asking about.
This video was far more helpful, completely answering what I was asking:
Color Temperature and Tint
I did find a LOT of things I want to read about in the user manual, so thank you for sending me there!
