Introduce process versioning

(John Barrett) #1

Something I hadn’t really considered was the potential over time of old edits being overridden/ruined in new versions due to changed processes. Its been mentioned that Lightroom has a process versioning which I think with the development of DAM is a virtual development. Indeed it is for any of us who keep RAW images and may need to reproduce them in print or export over changing versions of PL with out finding the original edit lost due to latter chqnged in the process changed in latter versions of PL.

0 Likes

(Sigi) #2

John, wouldn’t virtual copies work for that?

1 Like

(John Barrett) #3

I have had it pointed out changes to Smart Lighting and now the introduction of Clear View Plus (which I find much harsher) effect an image. I don’t see have a virtual copy can prevent that as it would be used with the changed processes. The original image will be displayed using the latter and changed program where as I understand Lightroom allows you the option to not update the process but keep the original. How they achieve that I don’t know but I would think the older processes must be added to not removed in updates? I do know those who use/sell images couldn’t function if they were unable to reproduce there backstock reliably(hence a son in that position is gloating about his instance over the years of not using DxO now I see the problem) .

0 Likes

(Pascal) #4

Usually DxO tries to translate corrections values from old versions as possible.

Pascal

2 Likes

(John Barrett) #5

I would hope you are right, but John M pointed out to me in respect of keeping just the RAW and dop files for later use if needed,

" I suggest you be wary of this approach (regardless of the issue you’re reporting here; related to particular cameras) - as different versions of OP/PL can interpret sidecar/.dop files quite differently.

For example ; when some aspects of the Smart Lighting algorithm were changed, older sidecar files containing details for Smart Lighting mode = OpticsPro9 were interpreted with completely different results."

this is why I am concerned over the lack of process versioning.

2 Likes

(Pascal) #6

YES That’s right …
and also be questioned if go back on an old correction deserve all this work for DxO !

Pascal
NB: it’s a fact, not a joke from me.

0 Likes

(John Barrett) #7

To me enabling constant results is important, if lightroom users (and here I have my son and he says many others selling images over time) have found it of use why not PL ones?
With out something how can you rely on results in future versions?

John

I am unsure what you thought I thought a joke, but wasn’t thinking of anything you said as such

0 Likes

(Pascal) #8

Anyway.
If you like you’rRVB conversion at this moment. Keep it.
If you want to reuse an old image with new algorithms, try this new version since the raw.

I do not see the need.
Pascal

1 Like

#9

what DxO considers and improvement doesn’t need to be an improvement to an image already processed with an old version. It might be “too strong” or simply different especially with the somewhat unpredictable tools like “smart lighting”.

So I fully agree with John7, old processings should be kept.

2 Likes

#10

Old processings MUST be kept !

0 Likes

(John Barrett) #11

I notice Affinity does enable old processes after updates for, just as PL should, to protect existing customization’s. A beta had not fully protected them and the customer reporting it was told the development team would sort it for future builds. If only PL did as well.

0 Likes