How to check if a lens is supported by DxO PhotoLab, and if so, how can I get DxO to recognize it?

I recently purchased a Voigtlander Ultron Vintage Line 28mm F/2 Aspherical Type II lens for use on my Leica M10 rangefinder camera.

First question - how can I find out if PL6 supports this lens?
Second question - if so, do I just manually add it to the EXIF data so PL6 will recognize it?

(This is mostly a generic question - I have other lenses I would like to check on in the DxO equipment list.)

Check support on this page: Unterstützte kameras/objektive - DxO
Note: your camera/lens combo is not supported

Because DPL does not support said combo, there is no way and sense in trying to make DPL do something wrong by editing the RAW file’s EXIF data to fake a supported combo.

Mike…you keep using and enjoying boutique gear in combination with DPL, which supports mainstream gear mostly. Please be aware that DPL supports exactly three Voigtlander lenses:

Buying that gear and hitting a DxO supported combo is as probable as winning the lottery… :person_shrugging:

2 Likes

Aha! So, perhaps I should try to edit my EXIF data to show the lens as “COLOR SKOPAR 20mm f/3.5 SL II ASPH”. Worth a try, thank you.

I usually buy the “best” gear that I can afford. If DPL doesn’t support it specifically, that’s OK too.

It took a lot of work to decide which lenses are “best”, and the very top of the list is the Leica lenses, which I can’t afford and therefore won’t buy. The very idea of spending $8,000 on a lens is beyond me.

Lightroom does seem to support almost everything, but I’m not changing back to LR from DPL. Even without being supported, the Voigtlander lenses seem to be getting fantastic recommendations, for a price I can afford.

(How could I have checked, and found that those were three Voigtlander lenses supported by DPL? Is there a listing someplace I could have scrolled through?)

Mike, you might try converting the image to DNG using adobe, saving it, and then opening the DNG file in PL. In that way, you may be able to edit it. I am not sure it will work, but it might.

Even if one makes a DNG* from a Leica DNG, DPL will only open it if a) the converter was from Adobe and b) the camera is supported in DPL.

The only benefit of going that way is, that EXIF is more easily editable in the DNG file in many cases…and that you get an additional file for backup, should the edit go BOINK!

1 Like

To much trouble - I just use the exif Editor app, and rename the camera field to something PhotoLab accepts. Takes seconds to do.

My point is that I shouldn’t have to do that - let PhotoLab open any image it is capable of opening, even if the camera is un-supported.

It works fine as is, using my trick.

Yes, but it then can apply lens correction for the wrong lens, so you need to turn lens corrections off!

I take the opposite approach to lenses. My ‘bread and butter’ photography is heavily into telephoto, so I bought three different versions (over time) of the Pentax 55-300 mm lenses, each new, and the latter two explicitly after checking for PhotoLab support. But… to satisfy my other curiosities I enjoy picking up older lenses and, before deciding whether to buy one, I check it has PhotoLab support. The only exceptions are lenses I have got for free, either inherited from my father or one I was gifted.

Another way to look at it… instead of buying “the best lenses I can afford” I instead buy affordable lenses that I can use “the best software” with, which improves the results of those lenses, as PhotoLab knows their foibles. :man_shrugging:

1 Like

Not necessarily. Here is a Nikon D100 file, opened in PL5…

So, I “just” edited the EXIF to show that it was taken by a D200…

Next step was to convert the D100 NEF file to a DNG file and change the EXIF in that to D200…

Fortunately, all that was needed was to adjust the colour balance…


I made a copy of the original D100 file before editing the EXIF. There was no way I wanted to risk a precious original for such an experiment.

But, as you can see, it provoked a loading error in PL5. The only way I could get a workable image was to convert to DNG first.

But that is only dealing with an unsupported body. Pretending that a lens is not what it appears to be is only going to apply inappropriate corrections, losing image quality.

As to pretending a f/2 lens is a f/3.5 lens and getting compatible corrections - good luck with that!

Your only option is to forego any chance of a lens module and learn how to get the best you can out of manual lens corrections.

I just learnt lens profiles are easily overrated, at least the ones I tried. In some cases the lens profile could not correct distortion properly, if the RAW format was smaller than the maximum sensor size.

Wow - to me that is a LOT of additional effort.

In my case, as was the case long ago, I want to open a ‘dng’ image from my Leica M8.2 camera. If I edit the EXIF file, and change the camera to “LEICA M10” the dng image opens, and I can edit it as usual.

This would be a lot more risky with my Nikon, as PL6 probably would recognize most, if not all, of the lenses I use. For the Leica images, PL6 mostly ignores my old Leica lenses from the 1960’s, and never sees the current Leica lenses as I can’t afford to buy one, and little by little, I find myself switching to Voigtlander lenses (which won’t show up in the EXIF field because my camera has no idea what lens is mounted. I leave the lens field empty, so hopefully PL6 will ignore it.

Here’s one example of an M8.2 image edited in PL6 after renaming the camera as LEICA M10:

L1000689 | 2022-10-21.dng.dop (14.5 KB)
L1000689 | 2022-10-21.dng (10.1 MB)

Inside the trolley it seemed dark, compared to outside where it was bright sunlight. You probably would have gotten a better result than what I got, but I didn’t want to push things too far. Out of 30 photos I took, I thought only three were worth editing, and in this one the driver looked to the right which I thought added to the image.

I thought my choices were to edit in PL6, where I felt comfortable, or to re-learn DarkTable, or to re-learn Lightroom.

…but back to my point - even if PL6 were damaging my image because of the wrong lens, which I could correct for by removing all the lens information, this is still better FOR ME than refusing to open the file. If I remembered how, I could have used DarkTable or Lightroom, which would have taken much longer until I remembered enough about how to use them.

PL6 is better for my Nikon photos, where it understands my cameras and lenses. With my Leica photos, my “best” lenses are Voigtlander, and while I could buy new Leica lenses for between $4,000 and $8,000 each, that ain’t a gonna happen. I might as well buy the new Leica M11 for $9,000 while I’m at it too.

Looking at your posted images, I would guess that the Nikon D100 and D200 are very, very different. But in my case, the M8.2 has a CCD sensor, and the M10 has a CMOS sensor so they’re also very different. Maybe I just got lucky… You were using .nef files, and you got it to work by changing to .dng files, and maybe that’s why PL got confused as I don’t think you can get a Nikon to shoot in .dng format?

I agree with you, but you are probably using a camera that is well supported by DxO, as most popular cameras are. I’m guessing you’re also using lenses that need a lot of correction. My 24-200 Nikon lens that I recently bought is a wonderful, amazing lens, but it is loaded with distortions. I’m almost sorry I bought it. DxO and PL seem to have tamed it, which I appreciate. On the other hand, I’m beginning to think that Voigtlander lenses are among the best in the world, with minimal distortion, are mostly affordable, and what’s VERY important to me, they are quite tiny and light weight. What matters the most to me is how well the lens captures the scene I am photographing, without distorting it, and while keeping things very sharp. Whether or not a lens is supported by PhotoLab becomes much more important to me when I buy zoom lenses by Nikon. Sometimes I wish I could start all over again.

This may be possible because your “RAW” files are DNGs but, beware of doing this with other RAW formats.

See this reply from Phil Harvey on his ExifTool discussion forums…

Capture d’écran 2022-10-23 à 15.55.16

Thanks for the warning. Maybe I’m just lucky it works with my two Leica cameras, M8.2 and M10, both of which save images in ‘dng’ format.

If I remember correctly there are two versions of the EXIF editor - I downloaded one named “Exif Editor.app” which is what I’m now using. I think you use a different tool.

Well, apart from the fact that your original is severely over-exposed for the sky and that there are a couple of “film scratches” towards the bottom of the image, I managed to weave some magic on it…

Here is the modified DOP with yours as master and mine as VC1…

L1000689 | 2022-10-21.dng.dop (28,2 Ko)


That is the one I use when I occasionally don’t want to be bothered using ExifTool

Hmm, two thoughts. Overall, your version is prettier, as I can now see all the wood details inside the trolley, but by making the “inside” look better, the “outside” is washed out - the trees, cars, and so on. I went back and forth, and for the first time ever, I prefer the image that is now (M).

The vertical lines are from blown pixels, of which my M8.2 now has three. Leica will re-map my sensor, eliminating the blown pixels - I just need to send the camera off to them, which I can do in three weeks.

For reasons I don’t understand, those blown pixels are far more prominent in your lighter version. My original version also has them, but (because it is darker??) they aren’t so objectionable.

The color in the trees is also off, because I didn’t use the UV/IR filter to block out the infrared light, which my M8 is sensitive to. I ordered a 39mm UV-IR filter, which will arrive later today. That should give me back the proper color in the trees.

To be honest though, I wonder why I even bother with the M8.2 camera when I’ve got the much better M10. I guess I’m just too stubborn, trying to get as much out of the older camera as I can. It’s nice that Leica USA will still fix my 2008 camera at no charge, but it’s like me going back to using PhotoLab 3 again - why???

What are your thoughts on a fill-flash? I keep thinking it would be a useful tool for photos like this, but another part of me objects to the very idea of using flash. Still, I could have exposed for the outdoor part, and let the flash “fill in” the trolly part of the image…

Mike,
You asked this same question back in Feb of 2021 (PL4). I provided a reference to manual adjustments. The same ones that DxO still uses today for images that PL does not have optics modules for.

General image corrections – PhotoLab Guidelines (dxo.com)

If you want to continue using unsupported gear, this is basically one of the best options. Editing EXIF data is going to create additional work for you. You can build a recipe and know that’s the one you’ll use when you are editing photos shot with specific gear.

We understand you like this gear, and that’s fine, but this is the trade off.

2 Likes

Rick - if I was trying to create a masterpiece, I would probably only use equipment that is compatible with PhotoLab, and all the potential tools described in your link would be invaluable. But that’s not my goal.

Whichever of my cameras I walk around with, I want to edit into images mostly to send others by email. If my purpose is more serious, then maybe I would look into other solutions.

What I do now for non-supported gear, such as my Leica M8.2, is import the images from the memory card into my organized file system, open the EXIF app, change the camera name to Leica M10, and I’m done. Three or four minutes tops, and I’m finished.

Then I will select an image or two, do my editing in PhotoLab, add a watermark, and export the edited image in whatever size is appropriate for my purpose. Think of these images as “snapshots”. Done.

I agree, if it is an important image, I’ll probably use a newer camera that DxO recognizes.

For my purpose, sending the image off to people as email, or posting in a forum, what I’ve done is “good enough”.

Gear - I want to use my gear, supported or otherwise. I’ve got all my old film cameras, and many of my old digital cameras. Maybe I’ll use my M2 Leica, or my F4 Nikon, or who knows what. No matter what I use, I end up with an image that I need to edit, maybe make the verticals vertical, maybe crop, maybe make the colors look a little different. If it’s film, I need to scan the negatives before editing. If I still had a 4x5 film camera, I’d be scanning those negatives - whatever it takes to get them into my computer. Sometimes it’s color, sometimes it’s black & white.

For “precise” processing, everything you are suggesting is probably mandatory. For stuff like this trolly photo, it’s more so a “snapshot” than anything else, and I enjoyed doing it. @Joanna showed me how much better it could look if I had her ability and knowledge, which I don’t. For me, this is a hobby. I’m almost 79 and I’m doing it for fun. If I had a more serious project, then everything you just wrote would be much more important to me, and I’d start by using camera gear that DxO supports.

My biggest challenge is learning how to use all the individual PhotoLab tools effectively, and sometimes I stop when something feels “good enough”. For example, I knew/know the sky in the photo Joanna just modified was blown out, but I had to pick a compromise exposure to get “enough” of the outdoors, along with “enough” of the trolly, that I could end up with a satisfactory image. I also took images based on the “outdoors”, and other images based on the “inside” of the trolley, but the end result was horrible. Had I used a Nikon D850, I’d have captured a better image to begin with. Oh well, for me, everything is a learning curve, and if I re-do this image again, I’ll use a supported camera, without the blown pixels.

(I will save your link - if I get much more serious about an image, I’m sure that will help me get a better end result, even if it takes me a day or two of editing.)

Lightroom automatic exposure, some NR and sharpening. No added structure (fine contrast) to prevent an HDR look.