I edit my RAW files and save them if I want to see them on other devices, or advice need access. Several times now, I edited the RAW file, but the entire work was lost, after updating a solution etc.
what do you mean by " after updating a solution" ?
How do you do that? I don’t know of any software that actually changes the image in the RAW file. Most, if not all, of them force you to save a copy in another format but the RAW stays untouched, just like you wouldn’t “edit” a film negative.
I am editing my raw file in Photolab, and export them to TIFF. It’s the usual process.
When editing a RAW file, Photolab creates a temp file, hence, if I don’t export the RAW to another file today, I can still continue editing tomorrow.
You asked why I keep exported files, hence my answer.
The raws are kept, as I might want to edit them again after a while, and I keep the TIFF or JPEG of the final image, as its the final image and I like to view them at any time, on any device.
2 Likes
Your edit are saved in the .xmp file, having a website to upload/showcase your work save some extra from keeping them on your computer adding on your hard drive, you can just save the .tiff with your raw/.xmp on portable hard drive to keep your computer from being loaded.
Robert wrote:
@Joanna It makes sense to make and create masters in 16-bit format, as current RAW formats is and tools like Photolab to open up RAW with existing corrections are far from a sure thing. There’s real issues with long term digital storage and the best suggestion is to store files in a lowest possible denominator. I’ve been doing this with 100 jpegs up until this year. I did open up some old PSD files from a my first full frame camera, a 5D recently. The processing I did in ACR was remarkably good in 2011. One reason the files are looking so good as I saved them in PSD, a 16-bit format at the time.
As I have a lot better gear now than then and my processing is better (there was a period of the dark ages between Aperture (came after the ACR/Photoshop period) and finding Photolab. Lightroom always had its limits, Iridient Developer wasn’t Adobe and is amazing software for what it is but has its limits, Corel AfterShot Pro did a few things right but was worse than either of those, PhotoNinja was never much good except with really problematic files. In retrospect I should have gone back to ACR/Photoshop until I found Photolab. But Aperture had spoiled me and I thought I wanted a dedicated RAW developer not Photoshop. Very, very silly. I had a lot less time for my photography as I was running a very busy and rapidly growing tech company.*
Now that my post-processing is back where it was in 2011, it would be a lot better to save my finished output masters in 16-bit TIFFS which my great-grandchildren should be able to open up without any issues. There’s no processing which still has to be done on these masters. In terms of reprocessing older files, the round of processing I do now on my archives will probably be the best processing I ever do. I might re-open a file or two in ten or fifteen years but I’ll probably be inclined to grab the best output master than start with the RAW.
Those great-grandchildren or even my children will be even less inclined to start with the RAW and process it properly. I would suggest that every photographer here in our DxO community think seriously about legacy and create a parallel directory of finished output masters photographs organised by date. Realistically, that’s all anyone coming after us will have time for. We can create our own legacy, leaving just the images, shots and expressions which we want people to remember.
After that the wisest course of action would be to digitally incinerate the rest of our outtakes, bad moments and poor shots. If we don’t leave those output masters well-ordered (in 16-bit TIFF preferably but 8-bit 100 quality jpeg will do), then we’re at the mercy of whatever time a time-deprived citizen of 2073 can find to rummage through tens of thousand of uncurated and unprocessed files.
All of these conditions would have to be met then:
- DxO Photolab to exist in thirty plus years
- the person searching your photos to have a valid Photolab license
- the person searching your photos to know how to use Photolab at all, let alone better than you or I do
- Photolab to still be supporting RAW files from the year 2001 (when I first acquired a Canon S30 and started to shoot RAW) or 2004 when I acquired my first DSLR, a Canon 20D.**
There’s just too many variables to really put a value on RAW files beyond our own working lifetimes (at some point our own eyesight will fade too far for us to process our existing photos in a worthwhile way). In the end, 16-bit TIFF output masters are the only friend you have against the inevitable push of time.
(*) I avoided DxO at the time, as they were using some kind ROOT-kit for copy protection. Like Adobe except worse. Fortunately at some point, DxO dropped the invasive copy protection but it took me a few years to find out.
(**) In between there were Sony jpeg cameras, the amazing and well-loved Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ10 12x optical zoom and a Pentax *istD which while nice in its way cured me of my nostalgia for my film Pentax K1000 and pushed me into the only too willing embrace of Canon for fifteen years. The last Canon camera with which I was really satisfied was that 5D. The 5D III did offer micro-focus adjustment – fantastic – but no longer allowed the focus screen to replaced by one suitable for manual focus, and the headline feature of 1080p video was in fact more like 480p after line-skipping (deliberate crippling). Nikon has been much kinder to me with real 4K video and auto-focus tracking which actually works and high ISO shadows which are ludicrously free of chroma noise, even before Prime Noise. Skin tones are more of a challenge than with Canon but with a good eye and Photolab at my side, I’ve partially made Nikon skin hues fresh and pink and not their default sunburnt yellow. Canon and Nikon both at least don’t have much green or magenta in their skin tones (Sony) and offer proper detail in skin tone (Fujfilm files even processed carefully eliminate skin texture after ISO 200).
1 Like
I also keep exported files, currently in jpeg, because for viewing them performance is much better in jpeg and also this allows me to use any other software. If I could keep exported files in HEIF instead of jpeg it would save me a lot of disk space (and/or cloud space). In my case 8 or 10 bits would be sufficient so the export functionality should support different colour depths. An option to select between lossy and lossless would also be required to correspond to the different use cases - I assume @Robertjan88 would prefer 16 bit lossless and for me lossy would do.
1 Like
I am very disappointed that PL4 does not seem to have HEIC support especially as it was committed for PL3.
3 Likes
This would be fine if PL guaranteed backwards compatible rendering (ie. work you did in a previous version of PL renders identically in the current version), but it doesn’t. It’s best effort, not something formally reflected in a process version or similar. In both of the PL upgrades I’ve purchased so far (not PL4 yet; still on the fence) I’ve run into images in which the rendering has been slightly different. It’s been subtle (eg. blue sky slightly more saturated, although there were some healing issues in PL3 that were more obvious until DxO patched them) but it’s enough to bother me, and the changes will add up over time.
I don’t want to have to export everything to retain the rendering I arrived at in my previous version of PL, so this is one big reason I don’t primarily rely on PL.
If you export and forget then no problem. If you expect your dop files to preserve your rendering over time, then be careful because they don’t currently provide that guarantee, even if DxO obviously has an interest in keeping any differences as minimal as possible.
DxO could solve the problem by implementing some kind of process versioning or just letting us retain the license to our previous versions of PL after an upgrade (although the latter is a poor man’s solution since eventually you’ll probably have nothing that will run the old version), but so far it’s no on both counts.
1 Like
HEIC support is extremely important to me – without it, I cannot include photos taken with my iPhone in my photo library. This is a full stop show stopper.
If HEIC support were included, I would purchase dxo photolab 4 today.
1 Like
Yup, HEIC + up-to-date iPhone support and I buy PL 4 that day. I’m in Apple Photos until then 
2 Likes
HEIC support but WITH Live Photo support and Save As HEIC support as well.
I’m just using an old Mac Mini because of my 500Gb of HEIC file taken from my and my wife’s iPhone’s.
And can’t leave it because no one implements this.
This and Face Recognition as good as Apple Photos.
Not everyone is a Pro photographer and developers tend to forget about the amatours that take pictures of their family and just want to get things organized and processed.
Well, I’m just here because I have tested and liked very much PL. And because I own a DxO One.
I guess no software can please all the people all of the time and I would hate to see PL go the same direction as the likes of Apple Photos. I see the software as more of a pro/serious hobbyist tool. There are alternatives for other user profiles.
For this needs, you might give a try to Mylio.
It has support for HEIC and live photos (at least they are working on it and evolving).
They have very good face recognition.
They also have import from IPhone without iCloud (or with iCloud, but no livephoto support).
Although I don’t use these features, I like Mylio very much for what it does.
Even though i voted for HEIC support (specifically for export, I don’t see much benefit in supporting import) I would withdraw my vote to make sure DxO don’t waste their resources on implementing Apple Live Photos support. Why should a serious raw developer support anything like that?
Really want HEIC import. Crazy to have to use another app to convert, and then lose iPhone metadata. On PhotoLab 4 even.
2 Likes
HEIC is lossy, also on iPhone. Why don’t you shoot in DNG? That’s what I do and at least with my iPhone 7 I can use the files in PL with no problem. No extra conversion necessary and a real raw workflow.
1 Like
The iPhone XS DNG are not yet supported. It’s supposed to be in the pipeline. No ETA on it yet.
i understand. to me adding this is certainly more important than adding the support for HEIC imports from iphones.
Ultrawide camera on the 11 doesn’t support raw capture.