I have a number of custom options under “Export to disk”. Is there a way (in the GUI or by editing a config file) I could reorder them?
Here is the answer I got earlier:
PS: I am not on my computer and could not test it yet so not sure it will reorder the items.
No, it doesn’t.
I found where this setting is stored on my PC. It’s in C:\Users<User>\AppData\Local\DxO\DxO.PhotoLab.exe_StrongName_[some random string of digits and letters]\188.8.131.52\user.config
I was almost there, but the way the setting is stored is peculiar: it’s XML (?) stored as a field value in another XML. I’m afraid to touch it
I am on a mac, I will have to search.
Maybe you can just make a backup of the file in case something goes wrong… good luck
In fact not.
It was bad advice from me
To use different JPEG settings
1- I delete TIFF and DNG default settings
2- I create differents JPEG (with numbers, but only for my understand)
3- I recreate TIFF setting for the end of the list
There is no official way to reorder the options except the one suggested by Pascal:
P.S. The options are ordered by the order of creation.
It’s another one of the “customise everything” requests which seem to be coming in hard and strong from Windows users lately. Fortunately DxO has resisted these calls so far and hopefully will do so in the future. A clear workflow and tools which work right out of the box are far more productive than customise everything tools.
I sorely miss better colour tools while the export options from PhotoLab worry me not at all. I can get a full resolution TIFF out, after which I can do further processing or archive it or use any number of handy-dandy export and repackaging utilities which allow almost infinite customisation and scripting. I do not need or want my RAW development tool to try to replicate what is available on every street corner.
It wasn’t a request, it was a question.
This said… you spend a lot of time battling other users’ feature requests, sometimes in a pretty aggressive manner, but may be you could pause to consider that other people may have different workflows than you? I paid for my DxO license the same amount of money as you did
Certes, true. I also spend quite a bit of time helping other users use the existing features well and sharing shortcuts with them, including you.
It’s essential that PhotoLab doesn’t slide into the direction of being a Lightroom clone with every feature that Adobe includes but working just a little less well. What really matters is that the core RAW development tools continue to improve, cameras/lenses are kept up to date and that PhotoLab maintains performance with modern RAW files which apparently are considerably larger than what the original framework was set up to handle. When a house is at risk of being flooded, polishing the bannisters won’t help.
Don’t you think the developers are best equipped to make these decisions? But what they need to have is honest feedback from the users. If you’re jumping on every thread which looks like it might result in a feature request booming “NO YOU DON’T NEED THAT AND IF YOU THINK YOU DO, GO AWAY AND USE RAWTHERAPEE”, you will discourage people from using the forum and damage the product.
You wont get much feedback from the developers at all. It’s a great pity you’d prefer not to learn how to use the software as created with its splendid alternative methods at arriving at the same result and would prefer to quarrel instead.
As a new user you might find it more useful to present the workflow or image quality issue you face and ask for ways to solve the issue rather than peremptorily demand that DxO immediately replicate (for many) unattractive Lightroom interface conventions.
Umm, I asked the question “how can I reorder export options?”. I didn’t make a request. You chose to treat it as such. Why?
Correct. You have multiple feature requests open. I mixed them up. My apologies. Question: are you satisfied with Svetlana’s answer?
What is this, an interrogation?
Thank you for your confirmation @sgospodarenko
This kind of little touch would make Photolab more friendly to use, if one day you have time to implement it.
Unfortunately others do not share that simple vision of polished details.
You misunderstand me, Marc. I agree completely with you. This would be a nice touch.
Which would you rather have in order:
- a much faster preview engine which offers realtime or almost realtime sliders
- advanced colour tools, including a three way colour balance tool and a sophisticated colour editor
- a more refined export module
- a half-working DAM which might be really good in two or three years
- up to date camera and lens profiles, including profiles for adapted lenses on mirrorless cameras
This is the choice which stands in front of us. Pick any two of the above. Generously, let’s say the cameras and lenses are already well in hand and don’t require any development resources. Still there remain four choices, pick any two.
The only one I do not need is a DAM and DxO is already working on it.
I can only give my point of view, with respect for the other’s needs.
DxO is making the software. It is up to them to deal with priorities and ressources to deliver the best they can for what we expect. I bet it is not easy.
I guess we are all aware that it is necessary to have a great quality and as much functionalities as possible -or a niche market- to survive against the concurrence.
There is a votation system on the forum, if this is the way to go, let’s use it. If it need to be adapted let’s do that too.
Please, calm down . So let me add some words. This was a question I gave a reply to. I’m going to close the post now as the issue has been clarified. As for the requests, I just ask you to follow the rule: first check if the request already existed before creating a new one. How important the request is we can see by the votes/likes/comments left by the users. You said you do not need DAM but it was the most voted/asked feature and we could not ignore the demand.