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. 
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…
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.
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.
To be honest, for the purpose I had in mind, I would have been completely satisfied with what you just did in Lightroom. I do know how to correct the sickly yellow-green trees in PhotoLab, but I have no idea how to do it in Lightroom.
You’re all getting me confused as to the most appropriate things(s) for me to do. What you just did is/was the simplest answer. Sometimes I’m lazy though, and just do things the easiest way, providing I like the result. Thanks for the “nudge”. 
…there’s a whole world out there!
You’re right about that!!! I think photography is supposed to be enjoyable, fun, and that the more I do, the more I’m going to want to do. Days like today I just set up one of my cameras (today it was the M10), put on a lens I like (as in my new 28mm Voigtlander), and go for a walkabout with no plans in mind, just an open mind looking for things to try to capture in a good photograph. Towards the end of today’s walkabout, I came upon this scene and had no time but to raise my camera, focus, and smoothly fire the shutter. As if on cue, a split second later the life guard took out his whistle, went down the stairs, and walked over to tell some people to move. As for me, everything just worked, with no time to “think”, only to “do”. Not a very exciting photo, but I was pleased that I captured exactly what I wanted, and then too, when I viewed it at 100% size, it’s just as sharp as I had hoped. I love this new lens!
L1004479 | 2022-10-23.dng (29.1 MB)
L1004479 | 2022-10-23.dng.dop (13.2 KB)
The outside is washed out for two reasons…
Even if you had used your M10, with 13.2 stops DR, that only applies at at 100 ISO and you were shooting at 640 ISO, which reduces that range to around 12 stops.
Since DxO Mark doesn’t provide a DR graph for the M8.2, it is difficult to say what the DR is at 640 ISO, but logic infers that it is going to be less 11 stops.
But the key to photographing high dynamic range like in this shot, with any digital camera, always spot read for the brightest part and over-expose by between 1⅓ and 2 stops. Then PL will give you a much better chance of recovering shadow detail and, thus, a better overall rendering.
Well I just adjusted the green part of the Colour Wheel and got much better trees, without having to spend out on some fancy physical filter…
That would be something I would question. I still have my Nikon D810, even though my primary camera is now the D850. Why? Because I have it set up with an alternative lens, just in case something weird goes wrong with the D850, not for regular use.
I also still have my Ebony 5x4, my Mamiya RZ67 and my Mamiya 7II film cameras. Why? I suppose because I have half a chest freezer full of ilm that I am dreaming one day I will get around to using. But the truth is, I can get better images out of my D850 than either of the Mamiya MF cameras and I only keep them for nostalgic reasons. Mind you, maybe I should sell off the Mamiya 7II since I have seen them advertised at around $8-9000 (not bad when I only paid less than $2000 when I bought it.
Ever since I got the extra DR that the D810 and D850 give me, I would only ever think of it in extreme cases. Otherwise, I hate the effect it gives - sort of like a badly done HDR. And I use LED panel lights for studio work.
Only if you used a wide diffuser and had preset the balance of flash to daylight before carefully measuring the sky, compensating for it and then working out what intensity of flash you would have required. Even then you are likely to get shadows from the point source of the flash.
Or you could have used your Nikon D780, with 14.3 stops dynamic range and got even better results.
I think, one day, you are going to have to face up to the choice of better images (with the Nikon) or that nice fuzzy nostalgic feeling from the Leica, but lacking the ability to provide good quality images except in particular circumstances which suit it best.
Then, the other day, I was sat on a bench at the local marina and spotted this…
Impossible to take with the D850, so I used the tool best suited for the job - my iPhone 12.
Or this one from Helen, taken handheld at 1/25sec on her iPhone 12 and barely touched in PL apart from removing a purple flare form one of the lights…
It really is all about the best tool for the job and Leica is not always that tool, no matter what it “feels like” to use it.
So much to respond to, but I’ll start off by saying you’re 95% right.
First, to get any detail in the inside of the trolley, the outdoors was sure to be over-exposed. I knew that, and tried several exposures, and finally settled on my “compromise”. Most cameras would struggle, and my poor M8 didn’t stand a chance. The M8 was Leica’s first attempt at a digital M, and in most respects, it failed. The only reason I bought it anyway, was to take photos by infrared light, since the camera didn’t have a built-in filter to block IR and UV. (When the camera was being tested, at that time of year, this didn’t seem to be a problem, but later, when it got cold and people started wearing sweaters and heavy coats, the “blacks” turning “purple” made the problem obvious. The best Leica could do was hand out anti-IR/UV filters to anyone who bought an M8.
Of course, in today’s world, 2022, the M8 is hopelessly outdated - it’s not even a full-frame camera, as Leica hadn’t yet figured out how to do that with the camera’s unusual geometry. Eventually they figured it out, and introduced the M9, which really was full-frame, and had the required filter built-in. Now that it has dead pixels, I’ll get it fixed of course, but I think I’ll mostly stop using it. The real problem with my M8 is me, not the M8. It’s like my Zeiss Ikon Contarex “Cyclops” with interchangeable film backs, that I bought at a “Dutch Auction”, and I think I only used it once. I still have it though - it is an amazing piece of technology, never mind the the Nikon F did the same things effortlessly, less expensively, and so on. Oh, I still have one of my F2 cameras, which I also never use, along with some of my very old rangefinder cameras that are never likely to be used again…
You’re also right that the M8 had terrible “dynamic range” in today’s world. The M10 is better, the M11 (which I will never buy) is better yet, my old D750s were better, and my D780 is much better. More about that camera later.
Color in M8 cameras - yeah, Leica gave out free filters to anyone who bought an M8, and you are certainly correct that the yellowish green can be fixed in PhotoLab. I spent an hour learning to use the color wheel, and got back my beautiful greens, but I’ve accepted that the M8 is now more of a collector’s item than a useful camera. Once the dead pixels are mapped out, I guess I could use it, but I’ve lost my enthusiasm for doing so. That has all been transferred to my M10 and D780.
Nostalgia - in one word, that sums up why I still have all these old cameras.
I love the flash that is built into my Fuji X100F, that is so small , and it’s not obvious from the photos that a flash was used at all. I’ve been searching, but can’t find anything like it for my current cameras, and I gave up searching and forgot about flash.
Very true. I wonder if I will do so before I am no longer able to go around with my camera?
I don’t understand - why couldn’t your D850 have taken the photo of the mushrooms? Is it that you couldn’t hold the camera low enough? Lovely shot, but the ugly round metal thingie at the bottom detract from the upper part - I’d have raised the camera, so more of the out-of-focus boats were included, and that metal thingie excluded.
Also, I enjoy Helen’s photo, but would enjoy it more had the camera been aimed a bit to the left, cutting out the ugly light pole, and getting a little more of the steps. Nice scene, nicely composed.
One thought on the last thing you wrote:
While I know what you mean, I also accept that “the best tool for the job” is whatever camera I have with me. Eventually I’ll learn, and I’ll walk out of my home wearing my D780, knowing that it’s “the best I’ve got”.
More on that in a separate response.
You’ve go to be kidding 
Here’s the kind of shadow detail I was able to pull up…
Only because you didn’t get the exposure right
How about using this problem as an excuse to stop throwing good money after bad and finally retire it to a shelf in a showcase?
Also it was so close to the mushrooms, cropping it would have placed the mushrooms too close to the bottom of the frame.The light pole is important because it holds the light that creates the flare, which echoes the curves of the bridge roof. She will be taking it again, with a bit more space around the top left. This time, it was a case of not cropping the large stone seat. We didn’t have a lot of time as we were waiting for Helen’s brother to arrive at any moment. Next time, we will also see what it takes to reproduce this kind of iPhone “magic” with the D850.
Which aligns with our use of iPhones for the two images I posted. Until we try out the D850 on the night shot, we shall never know, but I doubt if either of us can hold it for a 1/25sec exposure.
What is even more amazing is this iPhone shot of our house, taken at midnight with a full moon and an exposure of ½ sec handheld…
