History of modifications

Hello,
Could we have the history of the modifications made which is displayed even after closing and reopening the software?
This is very annoying for me!

Hi,
It works with the Mac version but must be implemented in Win for… too long.
There have been many requests about this.

Don’t forget to vote for it yourself.

Mark

You can vote for your own request. You have my vote.

This is the reason I will not be updating to version 6 unless of course the black Friday pricing makes it too tempting. Also. If it’s not in version 7 I will not be updating that either which means I would have to pay the full price for version 8. This means that DxO will lose me as a customer.

1 Like

I agree. Another unexplainable absence that would have cost nothing to implement.

While I may not agree with you, it is your money and your choice.

Mark

Actually it is explainable because DxO explained it some time ago. They ran into an issue implementing that feature on the Windows platform when it was included in PL 5. As to it costing nothing to implement, I assume that DxO must have shared that information with you, otherwise there would be absolutely no basis for making that statement.

Mark

1 Like

Mark, I have been a software developer for 22 years, in the military aeronautical and automotive fields (Leonardo, FCA, and a couple of Tier 2 suppliers), also leading a team in addition to writing code myself.

So, well, I have quite a bit of experience in judging the complexity of SW development tasks, timing efforts and costs, budget planning, and GANTT making.

And implementing on a different platform a feature that already exists on another one, well… it’s rather trivial. Certainly not something that takes more than a year to do. :wink:

I don’t think that is a universal truth at all. Go write an iPhone app and then see about implementing it on Android. The logic or algorithm parts of software are highly portable, but even they take time to port between platforms, unless one uses a “platform” that promises write once, run anywhere. However, those limit what you can do on any platform.

Then when it comes to the user interface and system calls/APIs, the differences can be enormous and prohibitive.

By the same token that your software experience gives you justification to question DxO’s skills, I think DxO’s knowledge of their own software probably trumps that.

It’s a well worn joke in IT that I am sure you will have heard. The worst user request always starts with “Can you just…?”

Well… we are not speaking of a feature that impacts on critical system calls/APIs. It’s a feature that simply has to write a list of modifications to a text file or to the database.

Definitely simpler than creating and perfecting the DeepPrime XD, algorithm…

I don’t question DxO’s stills, since I consider their demosaicing and noise reduction to be the very best in the industry. I very much question their priorities and propensity to listen to customers, especially for requests that have been going on for years and which keep being ignored and/or given evasive answers (see the very often brought out issue of the fuzziness of previews below 75% zoom which has been going on since 2018 and never gets any official reply). It’s not that they would not be able to. It’s that they don’t seem to want/care for requests brought out by several users… requests which would be definitely easier to satisfy than other many more complicated things they have actually shown they CAN do.

As long as we’re tossing our credentials around, I am retired from a 30 year career as a programmer and software development manager at the largest bank in the United States.

Of course it is unlikely that it would take a year to fix whatever this issue may be, but running a software development business requires making choices and compromises to meet specific business goals .We don’t know what the issue is or why it may be difficult to fix, or why they are not using the resources to correct it more quickly. However, do you believe they are purposely not implementing that feature in the Windows version to spite their users base? It is a question of prioritization and clearly they do not think of this as a high priority in comparison to other features.

Additionally, as a software developer yourself you should know better than to assume there is no cost to implementing this feature.

Mark

2 Likes

Exactly: a question of priorities.

But in my experience, the stakeholders (customers) requests should always have higher priority unless they contradict the basic philosophy of the program (such as the introduction of layers, since PL was never meant to be a complete “layer-oriented” graphics editor but a RAW developer/editor). And they expecially should have priority over features that no one had requested or felt the need for.

1 Like

Please note: The following is intended as constructive commentary - I am NOT trying to start an(other) argument over this issue …

I know that many PL users make effective and creative use of the History feature in their workflow … but, I also wonder if some users (esp. those coming to PL from other software) believe it’s actually necessary to be able to “back-track-thru” their adjustments in order to un-do something and/or start again in a new direction … when that’s actually not the case at all.

As PL users, we may approach the image-editing process in a particular order (because, generally, that makes good practical sense) - However, PL does not follow/respect that order - It has its own prescribed order in which it applies corrections, regardless of the order in which we made them.

So, the easiest way to experiment with settings for a particular tool (say, ClearView) is to simply experiment with those settings, and see what you like best … It’s NOT necessary to step-back thru all your history settings until you reach the point when you applied your ClearView settings in order to change them (in fact, it can be counterproductive if you’ve made a number of other adjustments since then - that you’ll now need to replicate/repeat).

My point being: Certainly use History if you have a genuine/practical use for it (and experienced PL, users such as @mwsilvers, can provide very good examples of how and why they leverage modification history) … just as long as you also understand that it’s not required in order to be able to un-do some correction setting you made earlier (as it is with some other tools).

John M

6 Likes

I agree with this opinion, John! The real usefulness I see of this feature is that it helps to keep track (maybe after weeks or months) of tentative (failed) choices already taken in the past, to avoid repeating them. And this is the way I would use it, NOT as a way to step back and undo steps (which would be pointless for the very reasons that you stated, and much more easily done just by altering/deselecting the setting you want to change).

3 Likes

Indeed. The main problem I see with a history list is that it is a stack, which implies that stepping back to a stage in the list and undoing one change implies that all changes made after it are also cancelled.

I cannot, for the life of me, see why anyone would want to do that, when they can simply change the adjustment in the appropriate tool without changing anything else.

Perhaps, as you say, it is because some come from software like Photoshop. But their history functionality also includes the idea of snapshots, which can be reverted to, which PL doesn’t have.

Or does it?

To my mind, PL’s non-sequential editing and virtual copies permit a far more flexible approach. We can work on a virtual copy to a certain stage and then use yet another virtual copy as a “snapshot”. Or we can revert to a previous virtual copy and branch out from there.

And, since there is no dependence on previous adjustments made with different tools, we don’t have to worry about executing changes in any particular sequence.

This is so important to understand but, I guess, years of conditioning by the “market leaders” can numb the senses to there being another way to achieve the same results.

But, as to why on earth you would need a persistent history list, even though the Mac version provides it, is a deep mystery to me.

Yes, but Mark’s always been a bit weird in that way :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye: :rofl: :sunglasses: :smiling_face_with_three_hearts:

2 Likes

Let’s agree to disagree. I don’t know anything about the code base of DxO but it wouldn’t be the first company, nor the last, having completely different code bases for the various operating systems. And in my experience as a software tester (you know, those guys that always tell you developers that things ‘are a bug’ :stuck_out_tongue:) I experienced that software can behave quite different on the various OS’s. Even different versions of the same OS. Mobile OS’s are especially ‘good’ at that…

@John-M
Although I agree with you, a history that persist after restarting the software can be quite convenient. I, for example, tend to work on the ‘hard cases’ for a while, just to let it rest for a while and revisit the same image to either continue or to make small alterations. A history of what I already did and tried can be quite convenient. But it’s not a deal breaker.

2 Likes

It’s like using VCs as snapshots but without the clutter. I use it reasonably often in this way.

A change to one setting will often lead to another and then another, and then I decide I am going in the wrong direction. Maybe I’m happy with my basic adjustments but want to abandon the HSL changes. If I knew in advance that my attempts with the HSL tool were going to fail, then I might use a VC. But… I never expect to stuff it up.

And while the HSL adjustments can be easily reset, what if I had already made some HSL adjustments and then made a bunch of tweaks to those and then wanted to reverse only the second set of tweaks?

So yes, it absolutely has value for anyone who’s not approaching editing like a project manager.

Speaking as someone who intended to permanently move away from Lightroom to Photolab, the lack of an image modification history in Windows was one of the reasons why I have returned to LR. I will still use PL to de-noise/sharpen some of my images because it does a really good job at that. If I knew then what I know now , I’d probably have plumped for PureRaw instead.

But I’m shortly going to add another post about why this scenario is not working well for me at the moment…

1 Like

It may be interesting for others to hear how you would use that history, if it were retained across sessions (?)

John M

It’s difficult to put it into words. I was just used to having full access to every step of the process that suddenly not having it seemed like a backward step for me.

Of course if you’re not used to having it, you won’t miss it!