How to use PhotoLab on multiple Apple Computers

DxO PhotoLab macOS topics
41

New hardware is a January priority. My wife loves her M1 MacBook and is strongly suggesting an iMac to upgrade both monitor and computer hardware. It’s kind of funny. If I wanted to buy a $2,000 camera I would get a very lukewarm response but she loves upgrading computer hardware.

On a trip to Europe last month, I spent so much time trying different backpacks and downsizing my camera equipment to fit, I managed to leave the power cord for my laptop behind. I got to process the first day’s images on battery power and accumulated images on SD cards thereafter. I wouldn’t have done complete processing but mainly just review for exposure mistakes, color and composition.

42

I’m going to be bold and, possibly, controversial…

As far as I can see, there are two options - 1. use the database for image edits - 2. use DOP sidecars for image edits.

Why, when it contradicts the well known software design principles of KISS and SPOD, do both get used at the same time?

  • Keep It Simple Stupid
  • Single Point Of Definition

Version control has always been a pain in the neck, ever since the days of the Microsoft’s Briefcase model.

In fact, possible Lightbulb :bulb: moment - how about PL allowing the marking of folders as “briefcase” folders, where DOP files will be merged without reference to the database?

Or, of course, I could be talking complete nonsense :crazy_face:

43

Joanna (@Joanna) it is not a stupid idea because that is effectively what I said about “promoting” virtual copies, i.e. cleaning up any mess quickly and easily and then went on to describe the idea of the “promotion” process being implemented as part of the re-import of any directory.

However, I saw this as a database wide feature and you are proposing a solution with greater granularity so that any directory can be assigned this “briefcase” feature which is even better. Having both added to PL5 would suit me.

However, in the meantime deleting and adding back the deleted files will work BUT this must be done in such a way that PL5 recognises the deletion and expunges the photos or directories before they are re-introduced. Doing both operations one after the other with PL5 active seems to work. If the deletions are done while PL5 is shut down that is fine BUT PL5 must have an opportunity to adjust to the deletions first before it finds the new overlapping content.

Kevin (@isthisnametaken) I am confused about your onedrive use and also jealous with an upload speed of 0.5 and a download that has shrunk from 12 to 4 the cloud is a complete no/no!! You state that both machines can see the adjustments made by the other computer and that you switch back and forth.

Your model is similar to one I tried where I wanted to split the export load between two computers so one held the photo and the local DOP and the other accessed both across the LAN. It works only as long as PL5 on either machine does not update the DOP as soon as the DOP is updated then Virtual Copies will ensue or at least that is what my tests indicate and I ran into that problem when I changed the Tag(red/green/grey) on one of the machines and got Virtual copies on the other!!

You can turn DOPs off in the preferences but then the second machine would not have a clue about the editing updates made to the photo!?

Incidentally if DOPs were stored separately to photos then …, it wouldn’t work because all you would be doing is working on your local version and not able to see the edits done on the other machine!!

So Kevin while I am glad that you appear to be defying the problem the rest of us are experiencing I would like to know how. But I will run a test by putting a photo directory on my NAS and trying edits from both of my machines at the expense of one of my licence seats!!

PS
Has anyone noticed the change in the trial conditions? In the past (don’t know if it changed on PL4) you could continue to use the trial but any exports would be watermarked now that my trial copy of PL5 on my test machine has lapsed that is it, activate or nothing. This no worse that other software suppliers but a little disappointing!

Update 1:-

NAS testing (simultaneous opening):-

Copied some photos that I have been using for testing to my X drive (NAS drive 1). Opened in the newly licensed (begrudged) test machine (T) and navigated to one of the directories. With that version of PL5 open I did the same on my main machine (M) and instantly got virtual copies on the T.

NAS Testing(only one machine open at one time):-

Will now repeat the test with T shut down after navigating to the directory before opening and navigating on M. Then shut down M and open on T. No edits at this stage just opening the directory. Worked fine with no VCs.

Now with editing:-

Will repeat with editing. Edited a photo on M and shut down. Re-opened on T and all o.k. and the edit made on M is visible on T! Made another edit on T and shut down. Opened on M and the T edit is visible made another edit on M and shut down. T found the edit and no problems!

Export on T:-

Changed Noise reduction to none and exported on T and shut down. Opened on M, noise reduction as left on T exported photo all O.K. The current exports on both machines are different, different suffixes and different locations.

An apology to Kevin:-

Kevin (@isthisnametaken) I owe you an apology for ever doubting your word. Providing the opening is strictly one machine at a time it works for photo edits. I will repeat the tests later and include keywords and export with the same suffixes and locations.

44

As mentioned e few times before, I don’t get virtual copies. So why???

George

45

@George The answer to you question is that I do no know!

The test was conducted exactly as described and T reacted to M opening the directory on the NAS as I described!

Previous tests where I have been accessing photos located on M from T simultaneously in order to export 50% on one and the other 50% on the other (using my existing two slow GPUs instead of buying one faster one) seemed to work until I made a rating change or did something (!?) and then VCs.

Currently I don’t know exactly what is going on except that the method I tested where only one machine accessing at a time worked needs to be repeated with M hosting the files instead of the NAS (and it should work with M doing the hosting) both machines are set up so it is an easy job but I need to block a hole being dug by foxes under out garden office first!

I will do that test and study the DOPs and the database and then investigate simultaneous access again, including a study of the DOPs and the database and see if I can wrap my head around what is going on and what might be triggering the VCs or not as the case may be.

The ‘Unwanted Virtual Copies’ topic ran for about a year and I was always staggered that DxO had not waded in at some point and set the record straight!

46

I thought that the unwanted vc’s was also on winwdows, where I’m on. Maybe somebody can confirm that?

George

47

@George I am running on Windows (both machines are Win10) and have had possibly conflicting reactions from my various tests. I have looked at your posts in this topic and you are using a similar configuration (I believe) to the one I use in my tests. 1 x NAS (DS220J) + 2 x Win10 machines both with PL5.1.1

You may well have described your workflow in a previous post but can you humour me and describe how you set up your system and the workflow you are using, whether you have both copies of PL5 active at the same time and what updates you make on both sides of the “divide”.

In one of your posts you state that you delete a directory but it comes back on the next synchronisation. Exactly how and where is that deletion done?

Thanks

48

Something else to consider - buy the Apple computer that nobody seems to know about, the “Mini”, add a good monitor, keyboard, and mouse, and you’re all set. When you eventually want to update, you don’t need to spend the $$$ for yet another display.

It’s small, as powerful as you want it to be, and can be bought with an Intel CPU or Apple’s new CPU.

Mac mini

It’s not the beautiful “thing” that everyone marvels at, but it’s small, and very adaptable, and you can buy a proper display made for image editing. That’s what I bought a year ago, and I’ll likely never buy a different Apple desktop computer again.

1 Like
49

@BHAYT
1 NAS, a win 8 and a win10pc. I don’t think that’s important.
At this moment win10 and PL5, win8 and PL4 in a network.
My preferences

setup1
setup11383×1173 170 KB

Further I use SyncBackFree. It’s a free product and reliable.
I synchronize between the pc and the nas. Theoretical this means that if I want to syncronize pc1 and pc2 I first have to do pc1-nas, then pc2-nas and then again pc1-nas. But mostly I edit on 1 pc.
Synchronize means

  1. if 2 equal files are on the pc and nas but with different dates, then the newest date is copied over th older date.
  2. if 1 file doesn’t exist on the pc or nas, than that file is beeing copied to the other.
    So if I delete a file on my pc, it still exists on the nas and when synchronizing it will be copied back.
    There are other possibilities to choose in that program like backup and mirror.

George

50

Indeed. But I think I have the ultimate solution for those who need both laptop and desktop - buy a MacBook Pro and simply plug a large monitor into it. I bought an Apple 27" LED Cinema Display around 2012 and has already outlived a couple of MacBook Pros.

When I take the laptop to the photo club, it remembers the calibration profile and positioning of the projector and when I bring it home, it adjusts to those for the Cinema Display.

51

I am going to stick my neck out here because I have not tested what I am about to suggest!

Put all your photos on a NAS and also put the database on the NAS. Make sure PL5 on both computers points to this database and open only ONE PL5 at a time. I am pretty sure if you try to open both PL5 programs at the same time the second one will complain that the database is already open. So, if you only use one computer at a time you should be fine sharing the database, DOP files and photos on the NAS.

52

Well, I’m half-way there - I have a good (Intel) Mac Mini, and I am still using my 2015 MacBook Pro.

Until the very latest MacBook Pro, I didn’t like what Apple was doing to the MacBook. They stripped out all the ports and connections, they replaced an excellent keyboard with a scrap keyboard, they replaced the function keys with a meaningless strip of pressure-sensitive things that changed depending on what you were doing. They took a perfectly good laptop and (in my opinion) ruined it. I never even considered buying one.

Apple has apparently seen the light - the latest MacBook Pro models have a real keyboard, have lots of ports once again, and I believe they’ve also brought back the “magnetic MagSafe” power connector.

For me, I would get the smaller size, so it’s more convenient for me to travel with. I just need to find $2500 of spare money - but in the meantime, my 2015 MacBook still gets the latest OS, and now that the battery has been repaired (twice, at no charge) it is working like new. I still need to verify that it has an SD card slot, but no hurry.

MacBook Pro for Mike

For you, the new model is finally something decent, and worthy of the name MacBook Pro. If my current laptop dies, that’s probably what I’ll get too, but not right now.

53

Why use a card slot when you can usually connect most cameras view their USB port and use the Image Capture app that comes with macOS to transfer files directly?

My present MBP is a 2019 model complete with no ports (apart from USB-C/Thunderbolt) and that touch strip that I never even look at, never mind use. I had to get a Thunderbolt hub to connect the monitor but it does also give me most other connections as well, including a power supply.

54

Dear Keith,
I can confirm that it works for DPL4 and if both machines are Win10.
After my Win notebook crashed and I replaced it with a MBA I splitted it again, because I wan’t sure what will happen if I work with Mac and Win on same database. I’m not even sure if that’s possible…I am Mac Rookie Because I don’t work with dop files, and also not sure if dop files are compatible between the 2 OSes.
At the moment my originals are lying on my NAS and I sync it with a little old tool to my main working system on Windows PC. On Mac I copy only parts of my picture folder, for working on my loggia or outside. On windows I work with DPL4, and on Mac with DPL4 and DPL5.
Maybe I will install 5 on windows system too.

That’s only for information and for my workflow

55

Since the 1980’s or so, maybe even earlier, I used PhotoMechanic to copy my files from the memory card into my computer. I have no idea if it would work with a USB port, but why would I want to carry around yet another cord? Getting them right from the memory card is fast, and once I know they’ve all been copied, I put the card back in the camera and format it. For a long time now, PhotoMechanic creates a name for the folder they are being copied to, and renames the files with as much additional information as I want:

Screen Shot 2021-12-18 at 09.55.33
Screen Shot 2021-12-18 at 09.55.33866×301 59.7 KB

In my screen shot above, all my photos taken this month will go into a folder named _2021 December

The next column over shows the folder that is created for that day’s photos

The next column over shows the automatically re-named image files

(This is before I start editing - as I edit, the DOP files will show up, along with a new folder for the exported images, and finally, in yet another column to the right, my image exports from PL5 will be listed.

To answer your question, it’s mostly a matter of “don’t rock the boat”. What I’m doing now seems to work fine, I don’t need to remember to bring a USB cable, and as for Image Capture App, why use that at all when PhotoMechanic does it so much better for me?

In a few weeks, there will be a new folder named _2022 January for all those photos (including those that PL5 will process, and those that DarkTable will process, for all my cameras.

Hmm, what you wrote about the 2016 to 2020 MacBook Pro’s, is why I never bought one. I specifically did not want that touch strip. If anything, I wanted even more ports, not less. Apple thought they were “simplifying”, but not for users - with their way, we needed to carry around dongles, and there were never enough ports.

Also, doing things this way on the MacBook Pro makes it very easy for me to copy all those new folders in my second column, from the MacBook Pro to my Mac Mini. I wish I had been aware of that for the past several years.

One last thing - my brother was copying images using a USB cable, and somehow he managed to damage the USB connector on one of his cameras. I told him to just use a card reader - problem solved. …and as to why Apple puts the card slot on the BACK of their iMac computers is beyond me. I figure for many years, “looks” was more important to “function”, which is why as the MacBook Pro laptops got thinner, the ports were left off. But for that, I wouldn’t now be using an almost 7 year old laptop. :frowning:

56

@Joanna & @mikemyers as a non Mac user I cannot comment on things Mac but I have never connected my cameras via their USB cables. The risk to my cameras is a failure of the SD card slot or the cover given how often the card is ejected for reading etc…

The connected camera is too ungainly and the risk of damaging the connection or pulling the camera off its “perch” simply not worth the risk, in my opinion. Hence, I have been using a Lexar high USB 3.0 card card reader, then replaced with a Lexar USB 3 UHS II reader and finally replaced with a USB 3.0 hub in the 3.5 floppy drive slot (that’s how old my cases are) for convenience.

Both my Lumix and Olympus cameras provide outlets but one uses the big USB 3 connector and the other a C connector. Given how ancient my PCs are (and to a certain extent my cameras are) it is convenient to be able to add newer technology externally. I do not use tethering so my port covers are never used and can stay snugly shut (although the card cover takes a pounding!)

57

Hard for me to put this into words here, but the pictures aren’t “in the camera”, they are on “the SD card”. To me, I want to simplify, and just move the card from the camera to my computer.

Maybe I’m just doing this out of habit, but I would be and am more concerned about damaging the USB connector on my camera, than damaging the SD card slot. Maybe I’m just being stubborn (as in, I’ve always done it this way). I wonder if one way or another is faster. I don’t know if all my cameras even have a USB connection, or which style of connector they use, something that is changing every few years.

Some of my cameras can even do this via Wi-Fi or Bluetooth or whatever it is they use,

Like I wrote, my brother got into the habit of using the USB connector on his cameras, which apparently got damaged on his D200, and also on the D3 that I gave him. We couldn’t get that to work, so I told him to forget it, remove the SD card, and use a “Card Reader” - no longer needed, since the iMac he bought has an SD card slot (on the back).

58

@KeithRJ thank you for that suggestion things went from worse to even worser (worse).

Plan X (NAS):-

My NAS drive(s) are mapped on my systems as X: and Y: and I have never had any problems synchronising to them or opening files on them in the past (you know what is coming). I configured T and M to use a database on the X drive and attempted to start M (after configuring and restarting).

PL5 reported that it could not acquire write permissions on the database file on X. In a later attempt I saw a new database file appear on X when I changed the database location but it still said it could not acquire write permission after I re-opened it! Changing PL5 to run as ‘administrator’ had no (positive) affect! It might be something to do with the permissions on the NAS drive but no other device has any problems accessing files on the drive.

I have abandoned Plan X for the time being (NAS is DS220J and PCs are WIN 10)

Plan M(ain):-

So I attempted to do the suggested NAS tests but with the database and the photos located on M. I opened the database on T and navigated to the V: drive (mapped to F: on M) changed one file to no noise reduction and closed T down.

Opened M and navigated to the same folder and Virtual copies instantly.

While PL5 on M is running I attempted to open PL5 on T which hung so attempted to close PL5 on M which also hung and finally dumped after which T could access the files and yet more Virtual Copies were made. Looking at the snapshot I believe that of the VCs [M] is the change made on T, [1] is the original that was on M and [2] is the one from T!

Plan S(pare):-

I have another (Win 10) machine that I could try as a NAS replacement to hold the database and the files in one location and then access from M and T to the mapped drives of S(pare) (the “only” complication is 3 machines and only 2 screens so I will need to do screen switching and keyboard switching - in fact I started to type this last bit with the keyboard attached to the wrong machine)!!

So M is pointing to DB on S, T is pointing to DB on S and while T is up after the DB switch restart I changed 2 photos to DeepPRIME in directory on S and closed T. Started M and navigated to directory on S and all O.K, no VCs and 2 photos with DP. Set ‘Reject’ flag on one photo on M. Closed M and started T, one photo with ‘Reject’ flag so set another photo with ‘Accept’ on T and closed PL5. Opened on M all O.K. and ‘Accept’ flag on as expected. Started PL5 on T and hung so terminated. Attempting to close PL5 on M hung and finally dumped!!

This is similar to the test I ran earlier except that both the database and the photos are held on the same device which is not running PL5, PL5 is accessing this third machine from two other machines across the LAN. The issue with the NAS has got to be some permissions issue!!

The excitement of all this almost exceeds the excitement of Christmas or dodging you know what!!

59

PhotoLab on Mac offers no built-in way to use the database in any other location than the one burnt into PL’s preferences file.

Changing the respective entry in that file does the trick, but I’d not really want to rely on such a mod.

60

Pre-PL5, I think that should work fine. However, now that PL5 is incorporating more ‘DAM’ functions, it’s possible that latency to/from the NAS could cause some issues with reads & writes (but I certainly haven’t tested this).